tv Gun Manufacturing Execs Testify After Several Mass Shootings CSPAN July 27, 2022 10:08am-3:43pm EDT
know that this organization and congress makes mistakes also. sometimes those mistakes are letting us get ahead of a professional conversation that we need to have with a conversation that is -- >> we are going to leave this recorded program and go live to capitol hill. this morning, gun manufacturing executives testify on how they market their products. as gun violence continues to rise in the u.s.. this is live coverage from the house oversight and reform committee on c-span 3. >> first, the house rules require that we see, you please have your cameras turned on at all times. secondly, members appearing remotely who are not recognized should remain muted to minimize background noise and feedback. third, i will recognize members verbally but members retain the right to seek recognition verbally.
in regular order. members will be recognized in seniority order for questions. lastly, if you want to be recognized outside of regular order you may identify that in several ways. you may use the chat function, you may send an email to the majority staff, or you may unmute your mic to seek recognition. we will begin the hearing in just a moment when they tell me they are big and ready to begin the live stream. the committee will come to order. without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. today we are holding our second hearing on the crisis of gun violence in america. seven weeks ago this committee heard heartbreaking testimony from witnesses whose lives were forever changed by gun violence. including mia cerrillo, a fourth grader who survived the
massacre in uvalde by smearing herself with blood so that they did not recognize her. gun violence is now the top killer of children in the united states. causing more deaths in children than car accidents. and, in 2020 more than 45,000 people were killed by gun violence. the highest number ever recorded in our country. since our first hearing the evil of gun violence has continued to shatter our communities. on the fourth of july a gunman rained down families bullets in highland park, illinois. he killed seven and injured dozens more. that should, or like the killers in uvalde, buffalo, las vegas, parkland, and newtown used an ar-15 style rifle.
this is an ultra deadly weapon guaranteed to kill soldiers on the battlefield. yet it has flooded our neighborhoods, schools, churches, and synagogues with deadly weapons and has gotten rich. that is why i launched an investigation into the gun industry. this morning i released a memo with our initial findings, what we found is appalling our investigation shows that five major gun manufacturers collected a total of more than one billion dollars for the sale of assault rifles over the last decade. one company made over $100 million from the sale of ar-15 style rifles in 2021. more than doubling what we made the year before. another company, daniel defense, tripled its revenue from these rifles from 2019 to 2021. smith and wesson brought in over $125 million from the sale
of assault weapons in 2021. our investigation also found the gun manufacturers used dangerous marketing tactics to sell assault weapons to the public. that includes marketing to children, praying on young men's and securities, and even appealing to violent white supremacists. finally, we found that even as guns kill more americans than ever, none of those companies take even basic steps to monitor the deaths and injuries caused by their products this is beyond irresponsible. at the end of our last hearing i vowed that this committee would hold a second hearing so the committee could convene directly from the gun industry about why they continue to sell the weapons of choice to mass murderers. today we will hear from ceos of two gun manufacturers who sold assault rifles used by mass shooters. daniel defense and roger.
daniel defense sold assault weapons that was used in uvalde to kill 19 children and two teachers. and to wound 18 others. and, me ruger is the largest assault rifle group in the u.s.. their weapon was used in a shooting in texas we also invited the ceo of smith and watson. this company is the second leading rifle manufacturer in the country. and as responsible for the mosque murders in other mass shootings. mr. smith promised he would testify but then went back on his word, perhaps because he did not want to take responsibility for the death and destruction his company has caused. the time for dodging accountability is over, today i'm not saying my intent to issue a subpoena from documents from smith and wesson ceo, and
other top executives, so that we can finally get answers about why this company is selling assault weapons to mass murderers. answers we were hoping to get at today's hearing. after we announced this hearing the committee heard from victims, family members, and survivors of gun violence from across our country. they wanted to share their stories and questions to the gun industry. i would like to play their video now. please play the video. >> hi, my name is nicole and nearly ten years ago i survived the sandy hook shooting in miami hold true school when i was just seven years old. still, to this day i struggled through the horrible aftermath and ptsd. >> our family was at the parade, when i saw the shooter emerge in the second floor roof line and pointing his long gun at my family and those around us, and rapidly fire.
i threw my wife and son around a metal park bench to save our lives, after it stopped i saw a father stand and scream for help, well my wife saw the son convulsing on the ground, shot through the abdomen and spine. as we ran, clutching hands, not knowing if someone was going to shoot us and if we are going to live or die, my son lost a huge part of his innocence. he is not the same person. he is broken, and every day my husband and i are heartbroken as we try to help him get back to the carefree, street, little boy that he was before this happened. >> hi, i'm jasmine, i'm 17, and i lost my little sister, jackie. at the rob elementary school shooting in uvalde, texas. this picture was taken on her first communion on may 10th.
16 days later, she was shot and killed using ar-15. >> hello, my name is anna, i lost my daughter, on may 24th, 2022, at the rob school shooting. she was a sweet ten year old girl who dreamed of attending texas a&m university in corpus christi. to pursue a career in marine biology. she was robbed of her future due to gun violence. >> my fiancée was shot and killed on may 14th by a white supremacist. when he went to buy our son a birthday cake. the shooter killed my fiancée with a rifle. he also had a shotgun, a rifle, full body armor, and a car full of ammunition. >> my name is fred guttenberg,
i'm the father of jesse and jamie guttenberg. on february 14th, 2018, i set my two children to school to learn, safely. towards the end of that day, a gunman showed up at my daughter's school mom. my daughter was one of the 17 killed me. >> these people -- >> i want to know, what are you doing to stop the shootings? do you know how many children have been exposed to gun violence in schools since columbine? >> what are you going to do? >> it's okay. >> to make sure that your products don't get into the hands of a white supremacist mass shooter ever again, who would take the child's father away. >> it's okay. >> these people are demanding
answers and accountability from the gun industry. i intend to get both today. following today's hearing, house democrats will continue to take bold action to stop the bloodshed. later this week, we hope to vote on the first assault weapon ban in nearly 30 years. the house is also planning to take action to end the outrageous legal immunity that has protected the gun industry from lawsuits for far too long. and in the coming weeks, i intend to introduce additional legislation to hold the gun industry accountable for the damage inflicted by their products. just like the car industry, the pharmaceutical industry, or any other american business. let me close by addressing my
republican colleagues, i know that you value the rights guaranteed by the second amendment, and so do i. but even just a scalia recognized that a right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited. and quote. even as we protect this right, we cannot ignore our fundamental obligation to protect the public, especially our children. i hope all of my colleagues will join me and finally taking action to end this crisis. i now yield to the distinguished ranking member, mr. comer for his statement. >> thank you, chairwoman. it's our responsibility to work to ensure the law is enforced to reduce crime. the violence that began during the summer of 2020 continues to increase, murders are up, aggravated assault syrup. we must reverse this trend.
ironically, cities with the worst crime rates are the hardest placed by guns. years of gun control laws in cities like new york, and chicago, they have failed. that's why we'll continue to protect the rights of all law-abiding gun owners who safely use, store, and carry firearms, including the ar-15, which is the most popular rifle in the united states. it's become clear that the two parties in washington have very different solutions of putting an end to the violent crime wave across the nation. republicans want to target criminals, democrats want to target lawful gun owners and take away their guns. we all took an oath to support and defend the constitution. the second amendment enters the right of individuals to keep and bear arms that defend themselves in times of danger. just recently, the supreme court reaffirmed a right of self-defense enshrinement in the second amendment. meanwhile, democrats and president biden continued to
blame american companies for various national crises that their policies have made worse. from the price of gasoline to the surge in violent crime, democrats are quick to point the finger at american industry. their targets today, the american firearms industry. what did the american firearm industry do wrong? customers are allowed to lawfully by guns. their customers are allowed to exercise their second amendment right to keep and bear arms for their protection, and other lawful purposes. gun manufacturers do not cause violent crimes. criminals cause violent crime. as the democrats continue their obsession with vilifying american companies, they refused to conduct any oversight over the biden administration and the federal government. it's not surprising that the lugar center, a non partisan congressional rating group has given the democrats in our committee enough for oversight.
democrats have no problem spinning companies and citizens, we haven't heard from a single -- this entire congress. when are they gonna get a subpoena? we invited attorney general garland to today's hearing, he's responsible for agencies like the fbi and atf. he's not here. in february, we invited the department of energy secretary to talk about gas prices, but she couldn't make it. just this week, we learned that democrats get the same response from the administration as republicans, they refused to show up. after both epa and faa rejected an invitation to the environmental subcommittee hearing, democrats were so desperate to secure the participation of the administration that they offered to change the scope of the hearing so that both agencies would be comfortable testifying. it looks like they still aren't going to show up. americans are suffering from the effects of an open border, including fentanyl streaming across into the hands of our youth, inflation at a 40 year
high, and last month gas prices hit a record of over $5 a gallon nationwide. madam chairwoman, it is time that we hear directly from the people in the administration making policy decisions impacting the lives of all americans. i would like to enter into the record, a letter from democratic subcommittee chair, expressing exasperations with the epa for not appearing at a hearing. >> without objection. >> i don't like to enter to the record a letter the committee republicans that you earlier today saying that we support issuing subpoenas to administration officials if they are not appearing voluntarily. >> without objection. >> let's hold the biden ministration to the same standard that you hold private companies. show up or get a subpoena. >> it is time that we do the job the american people sent us here to do. holding the government accountable instead of holding hearings that score political points against private companies. as i close, madam chair, will
you commit to holding one hearing before the end of the year with cabinet secretaries? just one hearing with one cabinet secretary. >> i will take it under advisement. now, we will introduce our witnesses. first we will hear from marty daniel, chief executive officer of daniel defense, llc. then we will hear from christopher killoy, president and chief executive officer of sturm, ruger & company, inc., then we will hear from ryan busse senior adviser i giffords law center. then we will hear from kelly sampson senior counsel and director of racial justice at brady: united against gun violence. finally, we will hear from antonia, national director of women's outreach at gun owners of america. in addition to our witnesses we also have victims and survivors
of the mass shooting in uvalde and highland park who will be observing or hearing, we are honored by their presence of these brave men and women today. in particular, i want to welcome felix and kimberly rubio, who testified at our previous hearing about their heartbreaking loss of their daughter, lexi rubio. the witnesses will be on muted so we can hear them. >> please raise your right hand, do you swear the testimony about give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god. >> i do. >> let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. thank you, without objection, your witness statement will be made part of the record. with that, mister daniel, you're recognized for your testimony. mr. daniel. >> thank you, chairwoman maloney. chairwoman maloney, ranking
member, my name is marty daniel, founder and ceo of daniel defense. i'm grateful for the opportunity to work with you and americans across the country in attempting to find an effective solution to combat the unacceptable increase in violent crime in our country, including the evil acts in uvalde, buffalo, and highland park that prompted this hearing. i'm sure that i'm sharing my views today to ensure the voices of all law-abiding citizens and gun owners are understood by this committee. i am concerned, however, that the implied purpose of this hearing is to vilify, blame, and tried to ban rifles already in circulation that are lawfully possessed and commonly used by millions of americans to protect their homes and loved ones, to safely sport shoot with family and friends, and to put food on the table as
licensed hunters. this proceeding is focused on the type of firearm that was involved in fewer than 4% of homicides involving firearms in 2019. i believe in god, -- fundamentally, i also believe that there is good and evil in our lives. what we saw in uvalde, buffalo, and highland park was pure evil. the cruelty of murders who committed these act is unfounded bull. it's deeply disturbing to me, my family, my employees, and millions of americans across the country. lately, many americans, myself included, have witnessed an erosion of personal responsibility in our country and in our culture. mass shootings were all but unheard of just a few decades ago. so, what's changed? not the firearms. they are substantially the same
as those manufactured over 100 years ago. i believe our nation's response needs to focus not on the type of gun, but on the type of persons who are likely to commit mass shootings. in my judgment, u.s. secret service, department of homeland security, have shown how we can best use public resources in reducing these threats. several recent studies by these agencies have concluded that mass shootings are preventable when appropriate communities systems are in place. in my full statement, identify other actions that can be taken without infringing on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. as the supreme court stated in heller, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily take certain policy choices off the table. including those that would
diminish the second amendment rights of law-abiding americans, such as banning common and popular guns. to close, i'm appearing before you on a voluntary basis because i believe strongly in our constitutional form a government. and the rule of congress and addressing the nation's problems. i have respect for congress. i hope you will afford me the same respect as both a citizen and a manufacture of a lawful product built for responsible citizens. thank you. >> and, thank you, mr. kilroy. you are now recognized for your testimony. >> chairwoman, maloney, ranking member, and distinguished members of the committee, good morning. my name is christopher killoy, i am fortunate and proud to be
the -- of sturm, ruger & company, inc., more simply known as ruler. at its core, rug, or like all companies is simply a collection of people. we are fathers, mothers, grandparents, friends and neighbors. from humble beginnings in connecticut, very close to our corporate headquarters is today, we have grown to a team of nearly 2000 hardworking folks. we have factories impressed, get arizona, north carolina, newport, new hampshire, and other cities. with small offices and personnel in various locations around our great country. we come to work every day with the goal of building rugged, reliable firearms that responsible citizens are proud to own and lawfully use. our motto, armed makers for responsible citizens is a testament to our company culture and philosophy dating back nearly 75 years. among the materials provided to the committee are a few examples of what we have done these many years to advance our philosophy and demonstrate core values of respect, integrity,
teamwork, and innovation. as many companies in america move jobs overseas to improve their bottom line, we build our products in american factories. with few exceptions our supply chain is all of the best. often supported by small, local businesses near our factories. we strive to provide good pay and benefits to our workforce, with the hope that employees will become long-term members of our team. we have the track record to prove it. right now we employ well over 100 dedicated and plays with between 30 and 50 years at our company. i recently attended a retirement party for a husband and life team who dedicated 87 years collectively not many ceos are as fortunate as i am to work with such great people. during the covid-19 pandemic we worked exceptionally hard to keep our workforce safe. our covid task force every day to manage the response, track
constantly shifting guidance and make political recommendations. while these protocols had an adverse impact on production and profitability, we offered for the harder decision and are proud of it with the recent acquisition of the marlin firearms brand we now offer over 40 product lines and innovation. our management team is small, hardworking, and effective. we work closely together every day, and strive to do the right thing for our employees, shareholders, customers, and communities. we operate on a rapidly changing and increasingly complex legal environment. we cooperate with law enforcement and remain true to our corporate philosophy. as a company, we support many initiatives designed to promote the safe and responsible use of firearms. examples include projects child safe, and walk the top america, just to name a few. these programs and others are detailing the materials we provided to the committee our
employees are very active and respective community. we have an internal company newsletter the pilots the achievements of our workforce. weddings, graduations, promotions, retirements and so on. i am always proud and pleased by the community outreach and service of our employees that i read about so frequently. roger is a collection of 2000 hardworking, dedicated individuals sharing the common goal of supplying rugged, reliable american made firearms to responsible citizens who use them lawfully every day. that is who we are, the tension between our constitutional right to own firearms and the harm inflicted by criminals who acquire them is a complex topic that evoke strong emotions regardless of your position on the issue. at the ruger we are proud americans that embrace the constitution and those guaranteed by the second amendment.
we firmly believe it is wrong to deprive citizens of their constitutional right to purchase the lawful firearm they desire because of the criminal acts of wicked people. a firearm, any firearms can be used for good or for evil. the differences in the intent of the individual possessing it, which we will respectfully submit should be the focus of investigations into the root causes of criminal violence involving firearms. thank, you i look forward to your question. >> thank you, you are now recognized for your testimony mr. c ryan busse. >> good morning, chairwoman maloney, thank you for inviting me today. my testimony is about decisions, the ones i have made, they once the firearms industry has made and the decisions you must make. like so many gun owners in america i grew up with guns and was taught the responsibility and safety are critical components. in 1995 i made the decision to get into the gun industry.
for the first several years of my career at the same responsibility i was raised with prevail there. tactical gear was not allowed in the largest trade shows, companies like ruger even included their founding model on advertising. ahmed maker for responsible citizens. by 2007, change what's happening as most companies began combining guns with the political fear and conspiracy machine of the nra. it worked very well because the same things that drove that radicalization also drove gun sales. prior to 2008 guns like the ar-15 were a pariah. they represented a new and untapped market and the and are right and the nsf needed new political symbols and profit. and so, companies like smith and wesson made the decision to get to the ar-15 business. if you years later the am and p 15. military and police became the best selling rifle in america, eventually young, male gun
customers in places like parkland, florida, highland park, illinois, and kenosha, wisconsin all decided to use this gun. by 2008 rigor made the decision to remove the responsible citizen model for most of its advertising. those industry leaders who spoke out against this new trajectory were attacked and marginalized. everyone was told that any new gun, any new gun buyer, or any gun marketing was good so long as it further political aims and soul guns. the trend of dismissing responsibility has only worsened. and today, the industry condoms threat frightening marketing but openly partners with domestic terrorists like a group that hopes for race wars. there is no industry criticism of this, in fact, the maker of this rifle is also one of the nation's largest gun retailers. they bolster the public support of most of the largest gun
companies, including smith and wesson. it is not at the industry is shy about aggressively placing the acts of members. in 2018, after the parkland shooting this ceo of dick's sporting goods park moved ar-15s and tactical gears from the stores they sold plenty of other guns but within days the board of governors officially expelled ticks to let everyone know that anything short of complete devotion would not be tolerated. i was inside the industry as new companies like daniel defense will businesses by advertising ar-15s with slogans encouraging young men's to use with the special forces guys use. like many companies they also saw and celebrated the inclusion of their ar-15s in first person shooter games and movies. when they tweeted a picture of a toddler, a proverbs verse we'll cradling a ar-15 in the same week as a volley shooter was killing kids. there was no criticism from
intercity leadership. it has been a prestigious reward. the same board of governors that expelled dick's sporting goods park elected -- to a cnn board. mr. christopher killoy is an important voting member. sadly, for me, there is no place in the industry for anyone who believes in moderation or responsible regulation if they did exist they were frightened into submission or forced out. in my last month as an industry executive i snapped photos like this. it is a tactical advertisement that weirdly combines revolutionary war soldiers, a modern ar-15, and a promise of daily gun fights as a business proposition. on january 6th, 2021, less than a year after i took this photo, these exact components coalesced into a violent mob just a few hundred yards from here. despite guns being the center of radicalized domestic terrorist there is no industry
review not of the ticket flags on january 6th, not about men invading the michigan capital, certainly not of kyle rittenhouse owning the libs by shooting and killing people at protests with his military and police rifle any rational person can see the direct lines from this marketing to the troubled young man who killed people in places like buffalo, el paso, and uvalde. anyone can see the direct lines to the nation's most dangerous domestic terror war's. i am here on behalf of responsible gun owners, like me, who will harbor a deep fear of what this is doing to our country. i am also here to warn you that there is much more of this. no one from the industry is going to stop it and it will get much worse. now, as the elected leaders of our country, you have a decision to make. what is to be done about this? thank you, i look forward to
your questions. >> thank you, mr. simpson you are now recognized for testimony, miss sampson. >> good morning, ranking member, and committee members. chairwoman alani, ranking member comer, and committee members. thank you for holding this hearing. people of all walks of life do agree that gun violence is a problem. it is a leading cause of death for american children, which is a public health issue, not a private evil hearts problem. indeed, no prevailing philosophy, theology, or world history suggests that evil is unique to the united states. what is unique, especially in comparison to pierre countries. we are not more evil, more prone to mental health diagnoses, or more violent. mental health diagnoses make someone more likely to be a victim of violence, rather than a perpetrator. in any case research shows
americans are no more prone to mental health issues than anyone else around the world. research suggests that america is not more violent than our peers. but, because guns are so regularly available we are decidedly deadlier. big when it comes to gun violence we are off the charts. that is why countries like australia, canada, and germany, worn their citizens to take extra precautions when traveling here. that is also why hundreds of families get the dreaded news with their loved one has been shot, today. in the face of such a horrific violence i can understand why people believe that the answers lie in the individual private sphere of hearts and morals. gun violence as a public health problem that requires public policy solutions. we have to be honest, we have a gun violence problem unlike any other industrialized country on earth. guns do not come from the sky. those opposed to regulation claim that people who want to commit crimes can circumvent gun laws as if the black market were a given. it is not.
loopholes, combined with the lack of accountability and unlawful, irresponsible, and negligent industry practices feed the black market. i am going to focus on those business practices. almost all cancer in licensed factories. generally, manufacturers sell to distributors, who still to, dealers who sell to the public. dealers are supposed to scream for gun trafficking and most do. the majority of gun dealers will not sell a single crime gone in a given year. but, the most recently available data shows that 5% of licensed ill or sell about 90% of crime guns. you may be asking what manufacturers have to do with that. a lot. their trust data from the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. the atf. manufacturers know which distributors are routinely selling crime guns. since the matory of crime dealers do not sell them in a given year, they have multiple traces that should at least trigger the manufacturer to investigate. and, at most, compel the manufacturer to cut business
ties. they do not do that and you did not have to take my word for it. several industry and deciders have said as much, i have seen it in my written testimony. despite manufacturers roll and supplying a black market, they face little accountability for a couple of key reasons. first, they have lobbied to undercut the atf. second, they have bought themselves a shield and protection of lawful commerce. a law that makes it much harder for those with misconduct to get justice. we have paltry enforcement and the gun industry shows carnage by flooding communities with guns, then rick's profit by saying the illegitimate will stop the bad guys with guns are good guys with guns. this more guns less crime frame is not just wrong, it is dangerous. first, we know that states would looser gun laws have more crime. second, framing guns around good and bad guys is not neutral. because of the racial inequities in our society, good dry with a gun is usually code for a white.
resulting and disparate treatment for black and honors, for example, police shot and killed the land of castile, a black, licensed concealed carry holder during a traffic stop, whereas police were we able to take an armed white man into custody who fled after shooting and killing seven people at a july 4th parade in highland park. further, some manufacturers use militarist a gratefully, suggesting that assault rifles either way to protect freedom. as i have detailed in my written testimony, freedom in a firearms context is linked to a distorted view of the second amendment that falsely claims that people have the right to take up arms against the government. this insurrectionists interpretation is particularly seductive to extremist, and it threatens this very body on january 6th. neither history nor any supreme court precedent supports the notion that the second amendment is the right to insurrection. as representative raskin pointed out last week, it is absolutely absurd, yet we keep manufacturers using it to sell cans all of the time.
the gun industry's role in fueling the epidemic cannot be understated. that cannot stand and i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you so much, you are now recognized for your testimony. >> thank you, chairwoman maloney, ranking member calmer, and members of the house oversight committee. thank you for inviting me to testify today and for giving me the opportunity to defend the rights of millions of american gun owners to own and maintain ar-15s for self-defense. my name is antonia woo okafor and i am a national spokesperson. i'm arrange safety officer who specializes with working with women with traumatic backgrounds. i am what you would call an accidental activist. my parents were immigrants from nigeria and i grew up primarily with an anti gun, anti second amendment mindset until my arrival in college in 2009, which was greatly grave at the epidemic of sexual assault occurring at universities cross
the u.s.. as a sexual assault survivor myself, i have since become a passionate advocate of empowering women, and in my years as a range safety officer and firearms instructor, i found that my female students tend to give the ar-15 the best review overall. . this year, gun owners of america put on three events for women that let new female shooters trial and array of firearms. hand guns, rifles, shotguns. out of all of the firearms, it was always the ar-15 that they raved about, many of them surprised, given the anti ar-15 rhetoric pushed by organizations spending millions of dollars trying to deter them from owning one, the ar-15 allows women to have a larger firearm without having to absorb the recoil, as much as one does with a smaller how it handled firearm, they are 15 makes it easier for those who have a physical disadvantage the attacker, to have an upper hand. having a rifle allows me the ability to shoot for much further away than the standard
handgun. the number one reason that women buy firearms is for self-defense. i am a proud owner of a daniel defense rifle, it is my go-to rifle, it is by far later than any other rifle i own. it makes it easier for me to hold and it still does an incredible job of absorbing the impact after each trigger poll. women had been known to use rifles in the fence for many instances but the people who have use these rifles use range from older men two young women, it geo a spokes person and senior living use an ar-15 to effectively stop a mass shooter at the church in his town a few years ago. november 2019 it woman in her ninth month of pregnancy is her family's ar-15 to stop two armed attackers in her home. after they severely wounded her husband and attempted to grab her 11-year-old daughter, the wife grabbed the ar-15 and drove the attackers away, one of them was found dead from the rounds she put in him before
they fled from the scene. more recently, and atlanta, a black army veteran protected his home and family inside, using an ar-15 to fend off two intruders from his home. his wife was hiding inside of the home, the man used his rifle in defense of his family, home, and property. banning these firearms will only make it difficult for women like me to protect our families, garden bans never stopped bad guys from getting firearms. as my written testimony shows, the original ban in 1994 did nothing to reduce the crime. consider all of the recent shootings in buffalo and uvalde, where aided and abetted by gun restrictions the buffalo shooter indicated his victims will be limited in their ability to hold firearms by the tough firearms restrictions. 90% of my shootings occur and gun free zones. a pre-existing second amendment, the right is self preservation,
the second amendments primary focus is not about hunting, this second amendment was put into the constitution as protection of the people against a oppressive government. history has shown, countless time, that any group without the means of keeping and bearing arms has remained the oppressed people group. our history america has shown oppression correlated with gun control. even after black people fought alongside their white counterparts, they came home from institutions that took away firearms from black communities. communities that relied on firearms to deter attacks from the clue clerks clan. martin luther king junior applied to times for a concealed carry unit, both times they refused to give him one. in conclusion, because of the many benefits of the ar-15 for women and those with physical disadvantages, including the fact that our constitution is clear, that no government body has the power to determine which firearm i choose to keep
in my possession. they rifle that is an exceptional firearm should be protected as such. thank you. >> thank you so much, i thank all the panelists, and our nice myself for questions. today's hearing is historic. it is the first time in nearly two decades with the ceos of leading gun manufacturers have testified before congress about their business practices. mister daniel, the gunman in uvalde used an assault weapon from your company to murder 19 children and two teachers. your company said that the shooting was, and i quote, a horrifying tragedy, and quote. let the victims and families are, quote, in our thoughts and in our prayers. and quote. you even canceled your
company's appearance at the nra convention after the shooting. you testified today that there has been a decline in personal responsibility. those are using your words. mister daniel, do you agree that the murder of these children and teachers in uvalde was a tragedy? and, do you feel any personal responsibility for that tragedy? >> chairwoman maloney, i am deeply disturbed by these horrific acts, made by evil people. i cannot even imagine what those innocent children had to go to, and the teachers.
i cannot imagine the horror of the families having to live with this for the rest of their lives. these acts were horrible. these acts need to be stopped. >> thank you. >> okay, reclaiming my time. mr. killoy, reference from your company, ruger have also been used in mass shootings. including the deadliest shooting in texas history. i played a video earlier in which americans impacted by gun violence had a simple question. what is the gun industry doing to stop the violence? we just heard from mr. daniel that we have to stop the
violence, i think we all agree, what is the gun industry dealing and, what's obvious step is to end the sale of assault weapons, to civilians and children. now the company before us has been willing to take that step. mister daniel, how many more american children need to die before your company will stop selling assault weapons to civilians and young man? >> congresswoman, was that directed to myself for mr. daniel? >> mr. daniel. can you respond, mister daniel? >> yes, i thought that question was for mr. killoy, can you
repeat the question? >> how many more american children need to die before your company will stop selling assault weapons to civilians and children? the weapon of choice and most mass murders in our country. >> congresswoman maloney, i believe that day murders are a local problem. they need to be solved locally. >> okay. my time is limited, i have to go to the next question. mr. killoy, how about you? is there any number of shootings in schools, churches, and synagogues that would convince you to stop selling weapons of war to civilians?
>> respectfully, congresswoman, i do not consider the modern rifles that my company produces to be weapons of war. like all americans i grave when we read about this tragic incidences. we ask what the industry has done and what our company has done and can do. one of the things you reference is the sutherland spring situation. in that case the evil person who perpetrated those crimes and murders was allowed to buy a firearm that he should not have been allowed to do. >> i am reclaiming my time. it seems to me that if i company really cared that its products were being used to kill scores of americans, it would stop selling them. but, of course, the gun industry will not do that because they are making lots and lots of money from these weapons. as shown in the chart behind me,
over the last ten years a daniel defense collected more than half a billion dollars in revenue, selling ar-15 style assault weapons. the weapon of choice in too many mass shootings. they also made over 500 million on these weapons, smith and wesson made more than 600 million. that is the very definition of putting profits over people. today, in the committee room, there are victims and surviving family members from the highland park and uvalde shootings. mister daniel, you have sent thoughts and prayers to the victims of uvalde. but you have never accepted responsibility for selling the weapons that killed these innocent children. you testified earlier that there has been a decline in personal responsibility. i want to give you an opportunity to show personal responsibility, will you accept personal responsibility for your company's role in this tragedy and apologize to the
family of uvalde? >> jerry won alone, these acts are committed by murderers, murderers are responsible. >> reclaiming my time. mr. killoy, how about you? we apologize to the victims here today, fictions around our country, and the families of sutherland spring's, boulder, and others who were home by your products? >> congresswoman with all due respect, while i grieve like all americans at these tragic instances, again, to blame the firearm. they particular firearm and use -- >> thank you, thank you. >> to learn a firearm as an inanimate object. >> reclaiming my time. let me get this straight, with all due respect, you market weapons of war to civilians, children, you make billions by selling them, but when someone
pulls the trigger you refuse to accept responsibility? i would call that a staggering lack of accountability. i hope the american people are paying attention today. it is clear they gunmakers are not going to change unless congress forces them to finally put people over profits. i yield back and recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. hice. he is now recognized. >> thank, you i want to thank each of our witnesses for being here for your testimony's. i also want to thank chairwoman maloney for holding this hearing so that the american people can see the disturbing trend in this committee of going after both private citizens and the constitutional rights of american citizens. just the other day this committee went after those in
the energy sector, now going after a firearm manufacturers for political purposes. just to go with the chairwoman's comments, i want to know when are you, chairwoman maloney, going to apologize to the american citizens for not dealing with the real issue. and showing responsibility and accountability? when are we going to have hearings in this committee holding people responsible in cities, municipalities, states, and right here in our own congress for being soft on crime? when you are going to have hearings to go away with the ridiculous, outrageous policies of defunding the police and, do we really think that is a good idea when it comes to dealing with crime? would anyone in their right mind think that climb would go down when we attack and defund the police? when we are soft on crime? and, here we have a southern
border that remains open, allowing gang members to come in we have not had one hearing about that. we have not dealt with one of the issues, this is like the old saying that we are going to blame the manufacturers of forks and spoons for obesity. i guess you are going to subpoena some of them as well, to deal with obesity and this country. an absolutely absurd that we are not dealing with the issues, i want to know when you going to apologize, for the lack of leadership in this committee of dealing with the issues that this country is facing. this committee should have jurisdiction over government oversight and federal issues not going after private citizens and private companies like we're doing here today. yes, violent crime is on the increase, that is a concern for all of us. but to go after the manufacturers of gun, while at the same time remaining soft on crime, defunding the police, supporting those policies, and
keeping our southern border open for all sorts of criminals, it's absolutely disgusting to me. it's unthinkable. the height of irresponsibility and lack of accountability. my colleagues seem to forget that the american people have a right to own guns, it's a constitutional right to defend themselves. yet, we have a perpetual barrage of politicized buzzwords like have already been used here this morning, like assault weapons, and weapons of war, to support arbitrary gun grabs, not from criminals, but from law-abiding american citizens. it's time that we see some changes. mister daniel, i would like to go to you. there are approximately eight and a half million americans who purchased a firearm for the first time in 2020. this is a trend that's continue to go up for the last several years. does your company make or
produce any illegal product? mr. daniel? >> we don't make any illegal products, we abide by all the laws, we have a very professional compliance department. we focus on always doing the right thing, we focus on, we tell our employees every month in our monthly meetings that we need to be 100% compliant, 100% of the time. we have -- we are known to have a great system of making sure that everything is legal. >> i have been to your company, i've toward it, it's an amazing place. why do believe so many americans are choosing to
exercise their constitutional rights for firearms and purchase firearms, particularly things like the ar-15, which seems to be under attack this morning? >> congressman, i -- our data agrees with what you stated, there were 8 million-plus new gun owners in 2020. that number has continued, those types of numbers have continued through today. equaling 16 million-plus new gun owners. our internal data shows us, sir, that less than 20% of those new gun owners who have never owned a gun before where republicans. people who have made a decision in the past two never own a gun, they have changed their minds, and they are buying guns in
unprecedented quantities. >> i'm sure that's primarily to defend themselves, because we're soft on crime, we're not dealing with the real issues. miss okafor, let me go to you here. gun ownership is an integral part of a citizen's right to defend themselves. that is interesting, chairwoman, i have two articles here, 1980 to the city of georgia passed an ordinance requiring heads of households to maintain working firearms and ammunition. interestingly, kenesaw, which is a metro atlanta city, certainly not a deep populated ruler area, they have incredibly low crime rates, particularly violent crime. between 2012 and 2020 only two homicides in that city. i have a couple of articles that i would like to submit to the record, please. >> without objection. >> thank you.
miss okafor, in your opinion, as private gun on our ship one of if not the most effective means of self-defense? >> thank you, congressman. yes, absolutely. that is one of the most impactful ways of deterring any criminal from wanting to go to the places that are most vulnerable in defenseless, like i said in my testimony, 94% of mass shootings occurred in gun free zones. a criminal is gonna go where they can do the most amount of harm in the least amount of time. those places they know they're not gonna be able to do that, they are gonna be deterrent. >> is that answer data based? >> that is absolutely data based. >> okay, thank you very much. i appreciate the chairwoman's allowing us to go a little bit overtime. with that, i will yield back. i think the witnesses. >> the gentleman's time has expired, healed's back. our votes have been called, after the questioning of the
district of columbia, miss norton, who is now recognized, we will recess for the purpose of going to the floor to vote. miss norton, you are now recognized. >> thank, you chairwoman maloney. for this especially timely hearing. you are having this hearing at a time when gun violence is menacing the entire country. you do not open a paper these days, these mornings, without reading about gun violence. often involving many many victims. i would like to preface my questions by noting that without statehood, the district of columbia could have its local gun violence prevention laws, including its ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines overturned by congress.
republicans, including this congress, however peter lead tried to overturn d.c.'s common sense gun violence prevention laws. we have defeated each effort, and i will continue to try to do so. it is clear that there is a common denominator to mass shootings that occur over and over again in america. that is the use of assault weapons. mr. busse, how is an ar-15 style firearm different from other guns sold by manufacturers? what makes an ar-15 more deadly and dangerous than regular handguns? >> think you, congresswoman. an ar-15's chambers in a very common cartridge, typically a 2 to 3, five point 56, that
weight is similar to many other commonly used guns. the ar-15 it is based on the military version of the rifle, it's specifically designed to be an offensive weapon of war for troops in battle to charge into places like buildings and battlefields to take as many lives as possible, as fast as they possibly can. that's with the design of the rifle is for. it's, i think an analogy may be an order, ar-15, if you think about in terms of cars, most cars and trucks have four wheels and the steering wheel and engines, all those things. most rifles have a trigger, and a barrel, and a stop, and all of those things. in this case, the ar-15 would be much like a formula 1 race car. it is like other cars, but it specifically designed to do things very fast, very easy, it
corners, it gets places very fast. i think that is the analogy that should be used. >> it's a very telling analogy, i must say. all of these differences mean the damage to the human body from one bullet fired from an assault rifle is particularly gruesome. i'll just give one example. a trauma surgeon at the university of texas said that the bullet from an ar-15 has so much energy that it can disintegrate three inches of leg bone and it would, quote, just turned to dust. knowing this, it is incomprehensible that the ar-15 style rifles are so easy to purchase. mister daniel, your company brexit offers a buy now pay later financing and consumer
can buy this product in, quote, seconds. mr. daniel, did the uvalde shooter use this financing program to purchase his weapon? >> congresswoman, this shooting is still under investigation. we shouldn't comment on this investigation. >> miss samson, i want to quickly turn to you. how could a assault weapon ban reduce the number of horrific mass shootings in our country? >> thank you for the question. >> put on a ryka farm. >> mike please. >> is it on now? >> thank you for the question.
renewing the assault weapons ban would prevent deadly mass shootings because we know that assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shooters. because as was mentioned earlier, not only are they able to shoot from a farther distance, but they also allow alone shooter to inflict much more harm on a greater number of people, in a shorter amount of time. so, if we renew the assault weapons ban, that would take away a key piece of what allows mass shooters to kill more people in less time without having to stop to reload. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. votes have been called in to accommodate members voting, the committee will take a short recess and reconvene approximately five minutes at the close of the last vote in the series, the committee stands in recess.
joins us now, he covers trade issues for politico. the senate appears to be on track this week to pass the bill to subsidize the u.s. semiconductor chip manufacturing industry. so, explain first why congress thinks that the semiconductor industry needs billions of dollars in subsidies right now. >> tens of billions of dollars
in subsidies, it'll probably be passed by the senate today. the reason is just that we don't produce very many microchips, or semiconductors, they are sometimes called this, they're the little computer chips that power your foam, power the seat in your car, power all the devices in modern society. we used to produce a lot of them in the united states, at the dawn of the digital era. throat sourcing and cost cutting, we don't produce a lot of them here at all anymore. that's been a problem in the pandemic era, right? there's been a lot of difficulties getting microchips for things like, whether it's digital devices like your computer or things like cars. there's tens of thousands of cars lining lots in michigan that can get microchips they need, just because a supply chain pressures, because of some trade concerns with china. just because demand for these microchips skyrocketed during the pandemic. so, or facing a national and global shortage of microchips right now. the idea is that we want to make more of them in the united states. policy makers are concerned, you know, we don't have enough microchips now, what if we had
some sort of conflict with china, a trade conflict, or something more serious? if they started cutting off for access to these chips even more, we would have a really big issue economically. the idea is, try to incentivize companies to make these computer chips here. the problem is, that cost billions of dollars to build those factories. other governments around the world are giving them subsidies. so, we're lining up to do the same. >> the number the white house likes to throw around, we used to produce 40% of the world's chips, today we make 12% of the world's chips. how long did that take to go from 40% to 12%? when we producing 40%? >> this is back decades ago, at the dawn of the digital era, right? back in the 90s, early 2000s. you know, in an effort to bring down the prices for consumers for all these digital devices, whether it's something that goes into your car radio or you computer, we outsource these things, right? china makes a lot of them, actually, south korea and taiwan make a lot of them as
well, especially the most advanced chips. those are the things that really are cutting edge that we need for military technology, ai and things like that. we really want to get those most advanced chips backs. that's why you see the senate lining up today to approve billions of dollars in subsidies for these plants. it'll have to go through the house after that. >> it's the chips for america act. do you note the chips acronym stands for? >> creating helpful incentives for powering semiconductors, something like that. it's been through a lot of different names. it started as the endless frontier act, almost two years ago. there's been a lot of twists and turns, legislative reset since then. now we're calling it ships plus science. there's a lot of scientific research funding as well. >> here's what we're looking, at 54 billion dollars in grants for semiconductor manufacturing research, investments to support technology hubs, regionally around the united states. tax credits to promote investment in manufacturing those tax credits running through the mid 20 twenties.
the question, will it make an immediate difference? >> the chip makers say it will, right? intel in particular, they made a big announcement earlier this year, they were going to spend tens of billions of dollars building and expanding microchip facilities in ohio. they say, once they get the subsidies, they can move forward with that project. there is also plans to build more facilities in texas, arizona, you know, policy makers are aiming to make these regional microchip hubs where you can have a lot of the industry associated with that right in one place. that's been contentious, you know, as the negotiations kind of dragged on throughout the summer here, you saw intel say, well, we're gonna delay the groundbreaking on some of that ohio facility because we need to make sure that we're getting these subsidies approved. that really put the screws to the lawmakers to say, oh, we have to push this thing before the end of the summer. right? it's been a big ask of the white house and vulnerable democrats in congress, because they need something to run on when it comes to the midterm
elections. with a lot of other things stalled in congress these days, they need to say, at least for doing something to bring manufacturing back. they also frame it as combatting inflation, the chips issue has really fueled inflation in a lot of these high tech devices. >> for comparison sake, do we know how much china subsidizes its domestic industry on ships? >> i don't off the top of my head. i'm sure it's a pretty closely guarded secret. the answer is a lot. they've made a point to get a strategic advantage in the sort of high tech sectors as part of their made in china 2025 goals. it's been a very strategic point that they've made to really try to capture the market on these chips. china doesn't make the most advanced chips. they're making what we call older or, quote, legacy chips. these are the things you need for a lot of the common every day devices. i always think of the seat heater in your car, gm, ford, they are building a lot of these cars without the chips for certain appliances and them. right? you might get a cart, they say, you don't have the cedars now,
but you can bring it back to the dealership when we get the microchip to do it. those older microchips, a lot of them come from china. that's where we're seeing a lot of our issues today. >> the vote yesterday and senate, 54 to 42, 17 republicans joining. >> 64. >> i'm sorry, 64 to 32, 17 republicans joining, most democrats on this bill. what happens next? >> what happens next, there will be a final vote for approval today, there is a procedural vote. probably around noon, then the final vote for the senate to approve, we expect that it will get 64 or more votes. there may have been a couple republicans who sat on the sidelines as a protest vote, protesting against the process, which has been circuitous on this bill. we think that maybe some of them will come on. i think you're gonna see 64, maybe more votes. watch out to see if mitch mcconnell ends up supporting this. he's been critical of the process, he voted for an underlying bill last year that kind of turned into this one over the course of a year. i wouldn't be surprised if he signs on as well. >> let me pause here in give
yours the numbers to join this conversation if you have questions about this multi billion dollar chips bill that's moving through congress. it's 202748 8000 to call in and talk to gavin of politico. -- for republicans to call, in 202748 8002 for independence to call in. as folks call in, one democrat who opposed this legislation, bernie sanders, speaking on the senate floor about it. here's a bit of what he had to say. >> over the last 20 years, the microchip industry has shut down over 780 manufacturing plants and other establishments in the united states and eliminated 150,000 american jobs while moving most of its production overseas. by the way, they did that after they received a federal grant
and loans much smaller than what we are talking about today. so, here is the absurd situation that we are in. the crisis is caused by the industry shutting down in america and moving abroad. today, what we are doing is saying we are going to give you a blank check to undo the damage. >> gavin bag, you caught up with bernie sanders yesterday after that 64 to 32 vote to advance this legislation. what did he say? >> i think that bernie, first of, all supportive of the underlying goal of bringing manufacturing back to the u.s., he just thinks there aren't enough strings attached to this funding. he thinks that, well, the microchip industry, he's correct, has been very profitable recently. they are making big profits. the problem is, other countries are lining up to do subsidies like this, the european union is moving for their own subsidy
passion, the micro chip industry is making it easy for them to say need to put subsidies to or we won't build here at all. i would say the backers of the bill it's a, we have built some guardrails in here to make sure that companies can't do with bernie is saying, take the money and run. right? there are certain provisions in the bill that say, if you take money from this bill, one, you can't do stock buybacks, and use it to buy back your old stop and benefit your investors. there's also guardrails against using, if you take money from this bill, for ten years, you're not supposed to be able to build an advanced semiconductor manufacturing facility in china or any other countries of concern, right? that's mostly meaning china. there have been people, like bernie, and people on the republican side who have said, those guardrails are not stringent enough. the guideline that they go with is a standard called 28 manna meters, it's an older type of chip, a larger type of chip, and if you built something more advanced than that, you wouldn't be able to do that in
china if you got money from this bill. the bill also lets the secretary of commerce redefine that standard, if they see fit. there are people who think that that could give some wiggle room to the administration to let chip makers do what they want to do. now, of course, chip makers like intel, they've lobbied for this wiggle room, they want to be able to do whatever they want overseas. i think that you just see some people who are skeptical that they're going to follow the rules and the rules will really be lived up to. i do want to say about bernie, it's easy for bernie to come out and say, oh, i'm opposed to this, because there's a few votes to spare, right? they have 64 votes, they got over the 60 vote margin. i think if it came to cook, they really needed to pass this thing, you would see him maybe get some more regulations in there and come over to support. it's not the type of thing he opposes just outright. i think that he's just kind of, it leaves a bad taste in his mouth that we're giving so much money to a very profitable industry, when we can't do a lot of the things that bernie has wanted to do in the senate,
whether it's, you know, renewing adjustment assistance, the assistance program for outsource workers, or passing a lot of the build back better agenda that seems to be on the rocks in congress. >> we have a few colors. john, columbus, ohio, democrat. good morning, you're on with gavin. >> i love this, because in our state, we're loving that intel is coming here. they've already been grazing the land where they're gonna build the factory. right now, i'm at work, we have a place where i work at, it's a lot of factory buildings, we call it future world out here. everybody is really excited about intel coming here. we're glad that our government is bringing here. we've been wanting ships to be built here in america and we are building every day, we have coming every day, the building i work out is all computerized.
computers do everything. i mean, it's amazing. we're just excited for to come here. i watched the senate yesterday when they were passing, i got off work, i was passing -- there passing the bill. it's exciting for a state to have a big company like this coming. there's been a lot of talk about the property, people are moving out there where they're is going to be built. we are just happy its coming here. >> what line of work or even? >> i work for a company called art.com, we deal with, like, we deal with paint all around the world. you get your paint, your computer printed out and we put it in this big round, like, tube thing. then the computer gets out to amazon and fedex, your trucks are lined up. >> has the chip shortage impacted your company? >> not really, not really,
because we've been having, our bosses are really up on it. the company i work for is partially owned by walmart. walmart is really been, like, appointed, not to make the work stop. even during the pandemic, they were like, look, we're gonna keep the work, going we have to keep the work going, even though they can have the computers doing everything. you still need humans to operate. john, thanks for the call. from columbus ohio, you mentioned that the housing market story from nbc four out of ohio, how intel may impact ohio's housing market, the ohio project specifically. >> john was calling in on the republican, line, correct or was that the democrat line? >> not sure. >> i just think it speaks to, that reaction is exactly what the white house wants from a
city like columbus and a state like ohio, they want people to be excited about government action, to bring manufacturing jobs back to the united states, this is something broader that i have trapped for the last few years, we really have a new bipartisan consensus in the last to try to use government policies to bring specifically manufacturing and factory jobs back to the u.s.. there is a certain nostalgia for that type of work. , hi benefits, good health care, high pay. this bill is part of that broader push. republicans used to be all sorts for outsourcing and free trade, trump changed a lot of that and in response democrats changed a lot of their expenses as well. biden is a lot more protectionist than more recent democratic presidents. obama wanted the trans-pacific partnership. bill clinton obviously signed nafta, we have not seen biden do as much trade stuff. he is much more focused on rebuilding domestic manufacturing.
whether it is build back better or make america great again, this is a new bipartisan consensus. maybe not complete consensus. there are always some people in congress who will be opposed, but you really see this bubbling up in washington. people are trying to bring those manufacturing jobs back. >> republicans joining with most democrats yesterday a sign of that consensus. >> i believe so, you see a lot of people who are excited about the idea of having these in their state, there are also republicans who see a national security imperative, if you would ask the lead sponsor, the lead gop republican sponsor, todd young of indiana says, look we need to have a market, we need to have domestic production of these microchips because we cannot be relying on other countries, especially china, taiwan, south korea, we need to make some of these at home, it is a strategic industry and i think you see people trying to toy with that idea of a strategic industry and say where else they want to support in the future.
>> heading down to crescent city, florida, this is mike on the independent. >> yes, i would like to know a couple of things, number one, how does it build for the republicans. number two is i think this bill is supposed to make us more competitive with china, one of the biggest chip manufacturers in this country has had backers in china, how is this going to help us if they keep having all of these factories overseas? >> interesting, a lot of this bill is not that, i think i saw the congressional budget office saying it was 79 billion deficit over the next decade, i will need to really look up those numbers, i have them not written down right in front of me, a lot of it is not paid for and it will be deficit spending, the idea is, is it worth it to subsidize these industries and bring them back because they will help rebuild the tax base in places like columbus, places like that. now, on to your second question,
how does it benefit the u.s. if we have american companies building ships in china as well? that is a big question, that is why you got this debate on the garden rails in the bill. right now, as it is written it would try to prevent any recipient of the subsidies from investing in new and advanced micro chip facilities in china for a period of ten years. unless there is some way to get around that they will be barred from building or expanding any new microchip facilities in china. of course, these companies probably have legacy facilities there but we do not want to be transferring the most advanced semi conductor technology to the chinese government and military. if you are making those semiconductors in china, because it is a one party state, there is not a division between the state and the economy, it could easily fall into their hands. that is there, the lawmakers think they have accounted for that in this bill. whether they have a think we will see.
>> treasure memory,, they bill is expected to add 79 billion dollars. >> awesome, thank you to the bloomberg reporters who brought that to me this morning. >> maryland, massachusetts, recount republican, good morning. >> i am sorry, i dialed on the wrong line i am an independent. it just makes me crazy, it makes me so crazy. to answer to the question who is paying for this, the american people, the american taxpayers are paying for this. why always subsidizing multibillion dollar companies, we are basically bribing them, they are holding us hostage and saying, you know we are not going to build that factory in the united states unless the american people subsidize. it it is, wrong it, is wrong, it is wrong, american people should not be paying for this, what we should be doing instead is, perhaps, lowering the taxes that these large companies have
to pay, and also getting rid of the regulations for them to build the factories here. we are going to pay for this for 1 million years, supposes never go away. feel free to correct me. >> now, i understand, i understand a lot of frustration from voters. the recession is looming and what do we see coming out of the senate? a big deficit spending bill with subsidies for profitable corporations. i think with the backers of the bill would say is we can cut all of those regulations and give them tax breaks in a lot of places. they are getting tax breaks for being there. but, at the same time governments all across the world are also subsidizing these corporations. they are going to go where they get the best deal. if we want them to bring microchips to the united states that these lawmakers have bet that it is worth the deficit fending to entice them to come to a place like ohio, arizona, texas, rather than taiwan,
to help feed workers into these new factories. into these industries. one thing that did not make it into the bill is things to allow science and support technology from other places. they got left of the bill. i think that is going to be a problem going forward. there is a worker shortage in many sectors of the united states right now. semiconductor sector is not uniquely immune to the. you need a lot of high skilled we arezmñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ just not turnm out at the numbers that we need from our educational institutions in the u.s.. but, republicans said we are not doing anything on immigration in this bill until they addressed some stuff at the border, that got left out of the bill, there was a lot of stuff that got left out of this bill, an entire trade title that would alter our relationship toward china commercially, a lot of china's strategy bills that got left
out of this. a whole, your long process of trying to craft not just a chips bill but a competitiveness bill. the vast majority of that got left on the cutting room so for, i can go into that if you want. >> i have about five minutes left, sally, waterford, michigan, democrat, good morning. >> good morning, at the beginning he defined a semiconductor as power. to me, power is battery. i have a battery and iphone, i also have chips, my washer needed to get the chips replaced in the control unit but it was still plugged into electricity. in my head i am not quite sure what ships are. they are not power but i know they are necessary. >> we will take that up, yes. >> absolutely, apologies if i was confusing earlier. we are just talking about the chip in your washer, the computer chip.
these things are typically not providing power or electricity to the device. the biden administration really is trying to have the energy sector over here. they are reliant sector that we are relying on the tv store. basic computer chips that make all of your devices work. everything from your computer, your phone, your washing machine, these things are in everything now. very important to the economy. >> two doors in georgia, independent, good morning. >> good morning, i have a simple question. what, exactly, our computer chips? whether they made of, what is their source? >> let's do it. >> we are testing my technical knowledge, doris these little memory boards to go into all of your devices. they are made by these big, robotic arm machines.
i cannot tell you the materials that go into them straight off of the top of my head but suffice it to say that the computer chips are memory boards, the circuits that are the brains of every device that you have, the reason that you can push a button and something else happens. these other building blocks of the digital economy. as a policy reporter i am sorry, i cannot be much more specific than that. >> in terms of when the industry started waving the red flag that we had a shortage in the united states, when did this legislation, the idea of this legislation start moving? >> yes, there was about two years ago a bill that evolved into this bill called the endless frontier act. that was a lot of the research funding, and the computer chip funding. national security experts have been raising the flag for years that we are really rely on other nations where these chips. that filter down through congress, so national security
hawks in the senate said we need to address this. the supply chain crunch is of the pandemic really drove that home. everyone sitting at home, ordering your devices, ordering new things. all of these things have computer chips and them. you have an increase in demand, supply chain disruptions because factories were being taken off line for covid. your problems at the ports. you have demand for computer chips going up, supply and transport is being curtailed, that really made everyone say, oh, we really need to do something about this, yes, i think it is plain to see if you go to places like michigan, general motors has over 90,000 vehicles just sitting, idle in these big fields out in michigan, just waiting for computer ships to come in. sometimes they will sell you one without all of the chips in it >> franklin, pennsylvania, i would be concerned about that. franklin, pennsylvania, jim, republican, good morning. jim, are you with us? >> good morning, my question,
my question is rob ford men had language in the bill that prevented people from making the chips over in china, which would give china the expertise that, you know, this is critical infrastructure, it goes to our security and chuck schumer took the language out of the bell. explain to me what the language was and why chuck schumer did that. >> sure, sure, thank you. you very well read into the policy of this bill, i have to say. there's two separate issues here, one is the guardrails, which i was talking about earlier, those are the regulations that would make it difficult or impossible, if you got money from this bill, to go and build a factory in china. those provisions are still in the bill, right? there's been haggling over the details. but those things are still in the bill. now, rob portman's thing, he was pushing what we called a research security provision.
basically, more stringent screening for people who receive federal grants, federal research grants, so you're not mistakenly funding, for instance, someone who's affiliated with the chinese military or someone who, you know, could be turned by them. this was just increased screening for this. this has been taken out of the bill, there were some last-minute pushes to try to get in yesterday. it doesn't look like it's gonna make it in. there are a couple things that could happen. portman says he's gonna push on with this research security provision, if you go into the early defense spending bill, or lawmakers say, they're still gonna try to pick up all the pieces that got left on the floor and pass a, you know, passed with the call a conference report, a separate bill that deals with a lot of the things that got left out of this legislation. that could be part of the conference report as well. rob portman is gonna push on, i think there's generally support for that provision. it just got a little bit complicated between the house in the senate, some details of it in the past few days, they really want to push this thing, so they said, rob, you have to
shortly. live coverage, here on c-span 3. >> the committee will come to order, without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the committee at any time. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. today we're holding our second hearing on the crisis of gun violence in america. several weeks ago this committee heard heartbreaking testimony from witnesses whose lives were forever changed by gun violence, including media cerrillo, a fourth grader who survived the massacre in uvalde by smearing herself with blood. so that they did not recognize her. gun violence is now the top killer of children in the united states. causing more deaths and children than car accident. in 2020, more than 45,000
people were killed by gun violence. the highest number ever recorded in our country. since our first hearing, the evil of gun violence has continued to shatter our communities. on the fourth of july, a gunman rain down bullets on families at a parade in highland park, illinois. he killed seven people and injured dozens more. that shooter, like the killers in uvalde, buffalo, las vegas, parkland, a newtown, used an ar-15 style rifle. this is an ultra deadly weapon, engineered to kill enemy soldiers on the battlefield. yet, the gun industry has flooded our neighborhoods, our schools, and even our churches and synagogues with these deadly weapons. it has gotten rich doing it. that's why luncheon investigation into the gun industry. this morning, i released a memo with our initial findings and what we found is appalling. our investigation shows that
five major gun manufacturers collected a total of more than a billion dollars from the sale of assault rifles over the last decade. one company, ruger, made over $100 million to the sale of ar-15 style rifles in 2021. and more than doubling when it made the year before. another company, daniel defense, tripled its revenue from these rifles from 2019 to 2021. and smith and western brought in over 125 million from the syllabus of weapons in 2021. our investigation also found that gun manufacturers use dangerous marketing tactics to sell assault weapons to the public. that includes marketing to children, praying on young men's in securities, and even appealing to violent white supremacy. we find that even as guns kill
more americans than ever, none of those companies even take basic steps to monitor the deaths and injuries caused by their products. this is beyond irresponsible. at the end of our last hearing, i vowed that this committee would hold a second hearing so the committee and the american people can hear directly from the gun industry. this is about why they continue to sell the weapons of choice to mass murders. today, we will hear from ceos of two gun manufacturers who sold assault rifles used by mass shooters, daniel defense and ruger. daniel defensible the assault weapon those used to move all day to murder 19 children and two teachers, and two wounded 18 others. ruger it's the largest rifle manufacture in the u.s., there is salt weapon was used to murder more than two dozen people at a church in sutherland springs, texas. we also invited mark smith, the ceo of smith & wesson, his
company is the second leading rifle manufacture in the country, and is responsible for the weapons used by mass murderers and highland park and parkland and another mass shootings. mr. smith promised he would testify, then he went back on his word, perhaps because he did not want to take responsibility for the death and destruction his company has caused. but the time for dodging accountability is over, today, i'm announcing my intent to issue a subpoena for documents from smith & wesson ceo and other top executives, so that we can finally get answers about why this company is selling assault weapons to mass murderers. answers we were hoping to get at today's hearing. after we announced this hearing, the committee heard from victims, family members, and survivors of gun violence from across our country who wanted to share their stories and their questions for the gun
industry. i would like to play their video now. let's please play the video. >> hi, my name is nicole, ten years ago i survived the sandy hook shooting in my elementary school in just seven years old. still to this day, i struggle through the horrible acts and ptsd. >> my family is at the parade, when i saw the shooter emerge on the roof line and point has long gun at my family and those around us, and rapidly fire. i threw my wife and son behind a metal park bench to save our lives. after the shooting stopped, i saw the father of cooper roberts standing and screaming for help while my wife father son, cooper, convulsing on the ground, shot through the abdomen and spine. >> as we ran, clutching hands, not knowing if someone is going to shoot us, if we are going to live or die, my son lost a huge
part of his innocence. he is not the same person. he is broken and every day my husband and i are heartbroken as we try to help him get back to the carefree, sweet little boy he was before this happened. >> hi, i'm jasmine, i'm 17, and i lost my little sister, jackie, at the robb elementary shooting in uvalde, texas. this picture was taken on her first communion on may 10th. 16 days later, she was shot and killed using a ar-15. >> hello, my name is anna rodriguez, i lost my daughter, on may 24th 2022 at the school shooting. she was a sweet ten year old girl who dreamed of attending texas a&m university in corpus christi. to pursue a career in rain my
elegy. she was robbed of her future due to gun violence. >> my fiancée was shot and killed on may 14th by a white supremacist. he went to buy our son a birthday cake. the shooter killed my fiancée with a rifle. he'll so had a shotgun, a bold action rifle, full body armor, and a car full of ammunition. >> my name is fred guttenberg, i'm the father of jesse and jamie guttenberg. on february 14th, 2018, i set my two children to school, to learn, safely. towards the end of that day, a gunman showed up my daughter's school, killing 17, my daughter was one of the 17 killed. >> these people --
>> i want to know, what are you doing to stop the shootings? >> do you know how many children have been exposed to gun violence in schools since columbine? >> what are you going to do? >> it's okay. >> make sure that your products don't get into the hands of a white supremacist mass shooter ever again, who would take a child's father away. >> it's okay. >> these people are demanding answers and accountability from the gun industry. i intend to get both today. following today's hearing, house democrats will continue to take bold action to stop the bloodshed. later this week, we hope to vote on the first assault weapon ban in nearly 30 years.
the house is also planning to take action to end the outrageous legal immunity that has protected the gun industry from lawsuits for far too long. and in the coming weeks, i intend to introduce additional legislation to hold the gun industry accountable for the damage inflicted by their products, just like the car industry, the pharmaceutical industry, or any other american business. let me close by addressing my republican colleagues, i know that you value the rights guaranteed by the second amendment, and so do i. but even justice scalia recognized that, quote, the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited, and quote. even as we protect this right, we cannot ignore a fundamental obligation to protect the
public, especially our children. i hope all of my colleagues will join me and finally taking action to end this crisis, i now yield to the distinguished ranking member, mr. comer, for his opening statement. >> thank, you chairwoman maloney. as elected representatives in congress it is ours wants billet-y to ensure the law and the style of crime. the violence that began during the summer of 2020 continues to increase. murders are up, aggravated assaults are up. we must reverse this trend. ironically, cities with the worst crime rates are the hardest plates to buy guns. years of gun control laws in cities like new york and chicago have failed. that is why i will continue to protect the rights of all law-abiding gun owners to safely use, store, and carry firearms, including the ar-15, which is the most popular rifle in the united states, it has
become clear that the two parties in washington have two different solutions of putting the end to the violent crime wave across the nation. republicans want to target criminals, democrats want to target lawful gun owners, and take away their guns it's all took an oath to support and defend the constitution, the second amendment ensures the right to individuals to keep and bear arms and defend themselves in times of danger, recently the supreme court reformed our rights of self infants and shined in the second event. meanwhile, democrats and president biden continued to blame american companies that national policies have been made worse. from the price and gasoline to the surge in violent crime, democrats are quick to point the finger at american industry. their targets today of the american firearms industry. what did the american firearms industry do wrong? customers are allowed to lawfully by guns, their
customers are allowed to exercise their second amendment right to keep and bear arms for their protection and other lawful purposes. gun manufacturers do not cause violent crime, criminals cause a violent crime we, as the democrats continue their obsession with vilifying american companies, they refused to conduct any oversight of the biden ministration and the federal government. it is not surprising that the lugar center, a non partisan congressional group has given the democrats on our committee and ask for oversight, democrats have no problem with admitting all companies and private citizens that we have not heard from a single biden ministration secretary this entire congress, when are they going to get a say? we invited attorney general garland to the hearings like he is responsible for agencies like the fbi and the atf, in february or invited the department of energy secretary
but she could not make it. just this week we learned that democrats give the same response to the administration and republicans, they refuse to show up, after both epa and faa rejected an invitation to tomorrow's environmental subcommittee hearing, democrats were so desperate to secure the participation of the administration that they offered to change the scope of the hearing so that both agencies will be cussed comparable testifying, it looks like they still are not going to show up, americans are suffering from the effects of an open border, including fentanyl streaming across into the hands of our youth, inflation at a 40 year high, and gas prices hit a record of over $5 a gallon nationwide madam chairwoman, it is time we hear directly from the people in the administration making policy decisions impacting the lives of all americans. i would like to enter into the record a letter from democrat subcommittee chair expressing exasperations with the epa not
appearing at a hearing. >> without objection. >> i would also like to enter into the record it letter that committee republicans sent you earlier today saying that we support the issue of subpoenas to administration officials if they are not appearing voluntarily. >> without objection. >> let's hold the biden administration to the same standards that you hold private companies, show up or get a subpoena. it is time we do the job the american people sent us here to do, holding the government accountable. instead of holding hearings like this to score political points against private companies. as i close, madam chair, will you commit to holding one hearing before the end of the year, just one hearing with one cabinet secretary. >> i will take it under advisement. now we'll introduce our witnesses. first we will hear from the chief executive officer of daniel defense, then we will hear from christopher killoy,
president and chief executive officer of sturm, ruger & company, inc.. then we will hear from brian busse sonia adviser at a law center. then we'll hear from kelly samson, senior counsel and director of racial justice at brady, united against gun violence. finally, we will hear from antonia okafor, national director of women's outrage and gun owners of america, in addition to our witnesses we also have victims and survivors of the mass shooting in uvalde, and highland park. they will be observing our hearing, we are honored by their presence of these brave men and women today. in particular, i want to welcome felix and kimberly rubio, it testified at our previous hearing about their heartbreaking loss of their daughter, lexi rubio, the
witnesses will be unmuted so we can hear them, please raise your right hand. swear affirm the testimony that you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative, thank you, without objection your written statements will be made part of the record and with that, mister daniel you are now recognized for your testimony, mister daniel. >> thank you, chairwoman. chairwoman, waking member calmer, my name is marty daniel, founder and ceo of daniel defense. i am grateful for the opportunity to work with you and to draw with americans across the country. we have to combat the unacceptable increase of violent crime in our country, including the evil acts in uvalde, buffalo, and highland park that prompted this
hearing. i am sharing my views today who help ensure that the voices of law-abiding citizens and gun owners are understood by this committee, i am concerned, however, they stated incline purpose of this hearing is to vilify, blame, and try to ban over 24 million sporting rifles also already in circulation, but our lawfully possessed and commonly used by millions of americans to protect their homes and loved ones, to safely sports shoot with family and friends, and to put food on the table as licensed hunters. this proceeding is focused on the type of firearm that was involved in fewer than 4% of homicides involving firearms in 2019, i believe in god and my faith guides me and my family, fundamentally i also believe there is good and evil in our lives. when we saw in uvalde, buffalo,
and highland park, was pure evil. the cruelty of the murders who committed these acts is unfathomable, and deeply disturbs me, my family, and my employees, and millions of americans across this country. lately many americans, myself included have witnessed an erosion of personal responsibility in our country and our culture, mass shootings were all but unheard of just a few decades ago, so what changed? not the firearms, they are substantially the same as those manufactured over 100 years ago. i believe our nations response needs to focus not on the type of gun, but on the type of person who is likely to commit a mass shooting. in my judgment, the u.s. secret service, department of homeland security has shown how we can best use public resources in
reducing these threats, several recent studies by these agencies have concluded that mass shootings are preventable when appropriate community systems are in place, in my full statement identify other actions that can be taken without infringing on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. as a supreme court stated in, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off of the table. including those that would diminish the second amendment rights of law-abiding americans, such as banning common and popular guns. to close, i am appearing before you on a voluntary basis because i believe strongly in our constitutional form of government and the role of congress and addressing the nation's problems, i have
respect for congress and i hope you will afford me the same respect as both a citizen and a manufacturer of a lawful products, both for responsible citizens, thank you. >> thank you, mr. killoy you are now recognized for your testimony. >> chairwoman the loony, ranking member comer, and distinguished members of the committee, good morning. my name is christopher killoy and i am proud to be the executive officer of sturm, ruger & company, inc. more simply known as ruger. at its core ruger is a simple collection of people. fathers, mothers, grandparents, friends, and neighbors. very close to where a corporate headquarters is today, we have grown to a team of nearly 2000 working votes. we have factories and press kit,
north carolina, newport, new hampshire, missouri, and small offices in personnel and various locations around our great country. we come to work every day with the goal of building rugged, reliable firearms that responsible citizens are proud to use. our motto, arms makers for responsible citizens is a testament to our company culture and philosophy dating back nearly 75 years. among the materials provided the committee are a few examples of what we have done in many years to advance our philosophy and demonstrate the core values of respect, integrity, teamwork, and innovation. many companies in america move jobs overseas, we build our products in american factories. with few exceptions, our supply chain is nearly all domestic. nearly supported by all small, northern businesses near our factories. i provided paying benefits to our workforce with the hope that ablaze will be long term
members of our teams. we have a track record to prove it. we right now prove employ over 100 dedicated employees with between 30 and 50 years at our company. i recently attended a retirement party for a husband and wife team who collectively dedicated 87 years to ruger. more than a typical lifetime. not many ceos are as fortunate as i am to work with great people. during the covid-19 pandemic we worked exceptionally hard to keep our workforce safe. our covid task force met nearly every day for more than the air to manage our response, track constantly shifting guidance and make political recommendation. while these protocols have an adverse impact on production and profitability, we opted for the harder way and are proud of that decision. with a recent acquisition of the marlins firearms brand we now offer over 40 product lines and over 800 innovations. our management team is small, hardworking, and effective. we work closely together every day and strive to do the right
thing for our employees, shareholders, customers, and communities in which we are located. we operate at the rapidly changing an increasingly complex legal environment. we do our level best to meet our regulatory obligations, cooperate with law enforcement, or remain true to our corporate philosophy. as a company we support many initiatives designed to promote the safe and responsible use of firearms. examples include -- just to name a few. these programs and others are detailed in the materials we provided to the committee. our employees are very active in their respective communities. we have an internal newsletter that highlights the achievements of our workforce. weddings, graduations, promotions, retirements, and so on. i am always proud and pleased by the community outreach and service of our employees that i read about so frequently. we are a collection of nearly
2000 hardworking, dedicated individuals sharing the common goal of supplying rugged, reliable, american made firearms to responsible citizens who use them lawfully every day. that is who we are. the tension between our constitutional right to own firearms and the harm inflicted by criminals to acquire them is a complex topic that evokes strong emotions, regardless of your position on the issue. at ruger we are proud americans to embrace the constitution and the blanket protections that provides, including specifically those guaranteed by the second amendment. we firmly believe that it is wrong to deprive citizens of their constitutional right to purchase a lawful firearm they desire, because of the criminal act of booking people. a firearm, any firearm, can be used for good or for evil. the differences in the intent of the individual possessing it, which we respectfully submit can be the focus of any investigation into the root causes of criminal violence involving firearms.
thank you. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. mr. busse, you are now recognized for your testimony. >> good morning, chairwoman maloney, thank you for inviting me today. my testimony is about decisions, the ones i have made, the ones firearms industries have made, and ultimately, the decisions you must make. like so many gun owners in america, i grew up with guns, and was taught that responsibility and safety or critical components of firearms ownership. in 1995, i made the decision to get into the gun industry. for the first -- >> was not written to be shredded in times of crisis or in tragedy. tragically, we see, often, even in this body, to use every crisis and every tragedy as a reason to shred the
constitution, so to speak. even today, and this hearing, we see once again the attempt to punish society for the acts of an individual. this ideology, this blame shifting, this rooted in marxism, that's the same ideology that gives terrorists and those who commit genocide the reasoning, and demagogues throughout history to justify their actions. truly, there is no single common denominator for the truly heinous acts that we've all witnessed, that we've all been heartbroken over in our nation. if we were to look at the common denominator's, one of the biggest things we see is the breakdown of the family. that's something i certainly think that we should consider as we go forward with this. miss okafor, could you speak, what is the fastest-growing gun owner demographic currently in our country? >> thank you, congressman cloud,
the fastest-growing demographic currently is actually black women and particularly women, 48% of the 8 million new gun -- gun owners that we had from 2019 to 2020 where women. of those 21% of them are black women. any insight as to why this is happening and at this time? >> particularly with black women, there's many reasons, one of the big reasons is because unfortunately black women are one of the demographics that have been victims of violent crimes. so, that is a reaction to that, of women realizing, black women realizing that they have to take care of themselves and protect themselves, particularly during the pandemic, we saw an increase awareness of this. so, that is part of the trend, the growing trend of black women getting firearms. >> one of the trends we've seen happening concurrently with this is the defund the police movement. do you think there's any
connection there? is that just -- >> it's actually shown, study by study, it is shown that in primarily african american communities, many african americans actually prefer and want to have, of course, a stable police force to protect and serve their communities. so, despite the rhetoric behind the defund the police, et cetera, even if so, for those who have a distrust of police, it is come down to their solution is to make sure they have a way to defend themselves and their families. that's about black people across america are going towards that solution. >> it's been interesting, to me, chairwoman said at the beginning, she said, the time for dodging accountability is over. yet, what we have seen is violence and crime is just increased in major cities across our country. especially in the last couple of years. a lot of it seems to be because
of the lack of accountability, we continue to have almost daily stories of criminals who committed heinous acts be released only to come mick heinous acts once again. in that context we've seen a number of people realizing that they have a need to protect themselves and protect their families. we have left -- in almost all these cities where this is happening. we have an attorney general here, our attorney general garland who's really laid the groundwork for an understanding that there aren't consequences for bad actions for the individual. and it's really upended the rule of law in this country. we've seen the tragic results. i was wondering too if you could speak to, one of the big concerns with red flag laws is that there is a discriminatory nature to them, can you speak to that? >> yeah, as we've seen, especially with red flag laws, uniquely tend to use no knock
warrants, which we've seen in criminal justice reform, et cetera, i think those in the second amendment community and those in the criminal justice reform community agreed on is that these no knock warrants have been used especially in discriminatory practices, especially in red flag laws instances. that's one of the many reasons why geo a gun owners of america does not want no-knock warrants to exist, as well as red flag laws, because of the discriminatory practices use behind them. >> one of the things we've seen recently to, the atf is a massive database of gun records. it's almost a billion, if not that already. recently, we've seen that it's a searchable database, basically. federal law says they're not allowed to create a gun registry, they have a
searchable database for all practical purposes. recently, we've begun to see stories of them trying to enforce this through local law enforcement. showing up, serving gun owners, do you have this serial number in your house, those kind of things. does that kind of thing concern you? how do you think that squares with the second amendment? >> it absolutely concerns us at gun owners of america, when it comes down to it, this is exactly why people are concerned about any type of registration. once registration is allowed, then it's very easy for any type of government agency to be able to use that to essentially, again, discriminate against gun owners and those that they deem to be, quote unquote, dangerous. it tends to be anything from what they believe is the first amendment difference or something like that.
when it comes down to it, that's part of the issue, it's that any type of registration leads to gun confiscation. >> the gentleman's time has expired. thank you. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i really appreciate you holding this hearing. i think the ranking member as well. and our witnesses. i serve as the chairman of the task force on financial technology, our task force is continuing to investigate the emerging use of so-called buy now and pay later financing for online purchases. i want to direct this question to mr. busse and miss sampson. it allows consumers to purchase and immediately take possession of an item after agreeing to pay the purchase price over a fixed period of time. the use of buy now pay later has dramatically increased in the last few years, especially
with the pandemic. not surprisingly, buy now pay later is also extremely popular with younger consumers, because it entails a very light credit, a credit check, and really targets those with minimal disposable income, and little or no credit history. by far, millennials and gen z consumers make up the majority of users by age group. regrettably, however, relevant to this hearing, buy now pay later has really become popular as a way to finance online gun and ammunition purchases. while some of the major buy now pay later providers like a firm and clarinet after pay explicitly prohibit purchasing guns and ammunition, some do not. as recently reported by the new york times, -- financial, llc, and some other
niche firms are actively exploiting the gap in gun sales market by teaming up with gun merchants to offer buy now pay later financing to facilitate online purchases. in fact, boasts a multitude of retail partners on its website, including several gun merchants, for example, the company is the financing arm for grab a gun.com, it's an online gun seller offering handguns, shotguns, and what they see on their website, a huge number of ar-15s. grab a gun.com highlights the convenience associated with cordova, buy now pay later, including no credit increased for preapprove and zero money down. the website also dangerously markets their services as advertised on grab a gun dot com, select a bill financing to
what they call, -- shoot now, pay later. that's running contrary to all of the checks that were asking to be implemented to prevent the wrong people from actually getting access to firearms. mr. busse and mrs. sampson, can you offer us your thoughts on how this new mechanism of buy now pay later in the gun industry should affect and exacerbate the gun violence epidemic? >> thank you for the question, congressman. i believe that this sort of system points out the sort of danger that we are now facing and what i think is a whole -- we need to do things to make it more difficult for impulsive teenagers to get ar-15s and up to 60 30 round magazines, that
the uvalde shooter had. we don't need to make things, i mean, 18 year old, 19-year-old, 20 year old kids, especially young men, they are impulsive. buy now pay later or shoot now pay later sort of financing options like this highlight this massive hole we have in a regulation, it's a holdover from the time when 18 year old kids thought it is okay, because they needed to go by a hunting rifle to go hunting with their dad on some nice october day. that's why this 18-year-old logs us and white handguns are 21. our country has changed in our many of our long guns, in fact, in some places, the majority of our long guns purchased our air fifteens. we need, in my opinion, as responsible gun owners, as lawmakers, as responsible citizens, we need to reduce the prevalence of, you know, increasing that sort of easy access. >> thank you.
miss simpson. >> i would also just add that the reason why this is so compelling, especially for younger consumers is because ar-15s are rather expensive weapons. so, for individuals who may be younger, this may be another way to allow them to get their hands on them. it all goes around to the deliberate marketing to some of the most vulnerable and impulsive members of our society. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i yield back, thank you. >> thank you, thank you. the gentleman from louisiana, mr. higgins, is now recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. busse, does an american citizen have the right to defend their home from armed, violent, home invasion? yes or no, not a trick question. >> yes, i believe the supreme court has established that right. >> well defined, 240 years ago.
reaffirmed by article three, and every sovereign state sense. miss sampson, do you believe an american citizen, a free american, has the right to defend his home from armed, violent invasion? >> with respect, thank you for the question, the things we're talking about won't prevent that. >> miss okafor, does an american citizen have the right to defend their home from armed and violent invasion? >> absolutely, not only is it a human right, it's also guaranteed by the constitution. >> absolutely. what my colleagues are doing, it's really, it is unbelievably beyond the pale of anything reasonable or constitutional. everything we are leading towards here is a seizure of weapons from the homes of law-abiding american citizens that have purchased those
weapons legally. you are setting up gunfights in the homes of americans between americans responding in the dead of night. when do you think atf an fbi comes to the house? in the dead of night. you are setting up gunfights between american citizens defending their homes from dark shadows clearly armed, coming into our homes, on to our porch, and through our door. you are setting up death. americans killing americans over some fantasy that you can define. what is a dangerous weapon in the hands of those americans? living beyond their true right. to exercise their own decisions
about what type of firearm they legally purchased in homes. it's insane. what's your pushing, it is not going to end well. once again, i clarify, yeah, you have majority control, you most certainly are exercising it, you can push this bill through by vote. but americans are not going to sit and allow, without responding, people make decisions like that. and the worst possible circumstance, again, in the dead of night. you are setting up some extreme things that you are 100% responsible for. my colleagues in the democratic party, when those gunfights happen that blood will be on your hands.
over some political charade of pretending to be able to identify weapons from your ivory tower in d.c.. you know better, i can define the weapons that americans should not have the right to own. we cannot buy a tank, or a howitzer, we carry light arms and we own them. why on them legally and we intend to keep them. miss okafor, thank you for being here today. very contentious, this issue in america but it does not have to be. anyone that would actually read the constitution that they teach, they would know that this is a rabbit hole there is no escaping from. ultimately it ends with an
american citizen standing to defend his freedom. the only question is can we have that debate reasonably through article one and the legislative branch, well we have reasonable regulatory effort out of article two and the executive branch? will be argued in court or will it be settled on the front porch of americans when the fbi and the atf show up to seize legally-owned weapons from law-abiding american citizens. that is what you are setting up. i am sorry, my time has expired but my passion has not. madam chair, i yield. >> the gentleman yields back, the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly is recognized >> i think the chair, of let me just say to my friend from louisiana that i will match my pad passion from his own. we will not be threatened with violence and bloodshed because we want reasonable blood
control. i will not yield. i will not yield! i will not yield, madam chairman! i would like the time >> i would like gentlemen to retract that statement. >> you just heard it. another threat of violence. >> last i'm chair. >> madam chairman, it is my time. >> madam chair. >> madam chair, can i put up. >> members will suspend. gentleman has a point of order. >> madam chair, the gentleman from louisiana requested a retraction, i do believe that mr. connolly said something that was not what mr. higgins said. i do not feel that with our rules you are allowed to say things that are not true. >> okay, mr. connolly, will you retract? >> i do not know what it is i'm expected to retract. >> you pointed at me and said i
was threatening you. >> if i could finish, and respond to your question, madam chair. i heard the gentleman from louisiana say that blood would be on our hands if we attempted to pass legislation that could yield to his imagination, atf agents and fbi agents going to someone's front porch and taking away their weapons. what i heard, in that remark, was an implied threat that people would resort to violence >> respectfully, i accept a gentleman's town. he is my friend and colleague, we disagree from time to time. i accept the tone of your explanation, sir. >> i thank you. >> i will withdraw my request to have the words stricken, madam chair. >> the gentleman withdraws, in time as mr. connolly. >> thank you, i think my friends louisiana. he is a gentleman.
i would ask that they use what they use. mister daniel, this is one of your ads. use what they use, it shows a military picture using a military weapon back. it would seem to imply that you are encouraging people to purchase military weapons and quote, use what they use. is that your intent with this? that people should buy military style weapons and use them like the military uses them? mr. daniel? >> congressman, thank you for your question. this ad is an ad for a rail system that can be added to an ar-15. we sell products to the military, we market products to the military, and we market
products to civilians based off of our military heritage. we provide the best products that can be built, and that can be bought. we sell those products. >> thank you, thank you. excuse me, i have a limited time. mr. biden busse, is that how you see that had? >> thank you, congressman, this ad is a common practice in the firearms industry. to build up the sort of military credentials of a firearm so that, frankly, oftentimes more young men want to purchase the gun as if they are in, still in, or wish to be in the military. >> would it be fair to say that just looking at the visual, this is not miss okafor has talked about with self protection and protecting my home. this is, in fact, invoking a
military image explicitly. it is inviting you to purchase the same kind of military style weapons the military has. is that correct? >> yes, sir, this kind of ads are very prevalent in the industry now. it has changed much in the last ten or 15 years. >> if we could put up a visual number two. yes. this is extraordinary to me, what weapon is that, mr. it busse, that is being handed to a toddler? >> that is a daniel defense ar-15. >> this is an ad by daniel defense, ending an ar-15 what it says is train up a child in the way he should go. and when he is old, he will not depart from it. what are we to take from that message, mister busse me? >> i do not think that is the meaning of the original proverbs verse, sir. >> no, it may be a distortion
of scripture, i did not think they had ar-15s when the scripture was written. mister daniel, if a child use as one of those guns to shoot himself, under the law is your company liable? are you liable by the law? >> this is not a question about safety, sir, this is a question about the purpose of this ad. >> no, i am asking you a different question right now because i have limited time. i am asking you a legal question. are you liable as a childhoods himself with one of those guns? >> i do not know the answer to that, sir. i will be happy to talk to my lawyers and get back to you. >> i would suggest you respectfully that the answer is no. all right. if a child it is one of those guns to shoot a friend or sibling, are you or your company liable? >> congressman, this child in this photo was not being taught to use a gun.
>> i am not talking about that just yet, i am asking a legal question about liability. the answer, again, is no. because of the law that protects people like you and your company. miss samson, i want to give you an opportunity to respond to the witness testimony from your companion at the table, who talked about ar-15s as being safer, easier, and they protect us, they protect us, including from sexual assault. i want to give you an opportunity, given your role, what do you think about that? our air 15's the best way to go in terms of self protection? >> thank you for that question, congressman, there has actually been researched and into the number of shots fired by individuals when they are facing a home invasion. in any case, most of the time the answer is 2 to 3 shots, if at all. an ar-15 is totally unnecessary for something like personal self-defense. on the other hand, it is very
effective for inflicting mass casualties, as we saw at uvalde, as we saw a parkland, as we saw at highland park, and as we see over and over again in our country. >> i thank you, my time has expired. thank you madam chairwoman for holding this very important hearing. >> the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, is recognized. mr. clyde, mr. cline is recognized. >> thank you, thank you for yielding mr. jordan. might i remind my friend, mr. connolly, of justice scalia's words when he says, it may be objected that if weapons that are most useful and military service, and 16 rifles and the life, then the second amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. that will be a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state. so, and this is again, justice
manufacturers, through trees data from the manufacturers, or atf, many manufacturers know which dealers or distributors routinely sell guns, is that correct? >> yes. >> okay, you use this term, crime gun, can you define that term? >> it's where either the possession of the gun was a crime or it was used in the commission of a crime. >> say that again. >> a crime gun is a gun in which either the possession of the gun itself was a crime or was used in the commission of a crime. >> so, do you have evidence to show that every trace gun is a crime gun, as you call it? >> by definition, yes. we've seen instances where manufacturers have continued to do business with dealers who have an inordinate amount of traces per year. -- if a manufacturer sees the same store continue to sell crime guns, that should raise alarm bell to that manufacture. >> the manufactures primarily salted distributors, right?
>> they still to distributors who sell to dealers. >> the manufacturers never gonna see the dealer sailor, is he? >> yes, they will, they will understand which dealer. >> if they sell to a distributor, how they know that? >> through the atf. >> the atf would not tell them what dealer. >> the atf has actually offered to do that, manufacturers have refused, i detail that my written testimony. >> the gentleman's time has expired. gentleman from illinois, recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. miss okafor, i have a social media post on your facebook instagram account, the image says, you posted it on june 16th 2020, here we have the seal of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosions. next to it, you said, quote, we said what we said, hashtag geo a, gun honors of america, hashtag abolish the atf.
that's what your post says, correct? >> correct. >> underneath this atf seal, your post says in big letters, defund. correct? >> correct. >> defund the atf. just to be clear, you say defund the atf and then abolish the atf. on july 4th, and highland park illinois, very close to my district in the chicago suburbs, the shooter shot and killed seven and injured 30 with an ar style rifle, ar-15 style rifle. the shooter fled the scene, despite this, he was identified and caught because atf agents were able to quickly trace a weapon he left at the scene, back to him, using the atf's national tracing center. yet, ma'am, you want to abolish this agency. you want to abolish this national tracing center. that is an extreme and radical viewpoint. unfortunately, some folks on the other side have introduced
the extremists bill, quote, eliminates the atf act. i respectfully submit that we should help keep our law enforcement intact, we should help keep our communities safe, and we should be investing in the atf and law enforcement, not defunding and abolishing it as he would suggest, ma'am. mister daniel, i want to turn your attention to a tweet on your account. this tweet says, it is actually from march 2nd depicting the delta five pro precision rifle. your post reads, quote, rooftop ready, even at midnight. then a smiley face emojis follows that statement. mister daniel, this is what your tweet says, correct? but >> yes, that is correct,
sir. >> the tweet shows what appears to be a night vision gun scope trained on a parked car at street level. mister daniel, this tweet is not depicting anyone hunting for wildlife, is it? but >> no, sir. >> it is not depicting anyone acting in self-defense against someone attacking them, correct? >> that remains in the eye of the viewer, sir. >> i don't see anyone attacking someone here. mr. busse, can you verify that? no one appears to be attacking the person who is supposedly operating this ar-15 or the sniper rifle, correct? >> yes, sir, that appears to be an ad which in some way glorifies the idea of becoming a sniper with that rifle. >> mister daniel, this advertisement appears to depict premeditated violence or murder from a rooftop. as you know, the highland park
shooter in illinois rain down bullets from a rooftop. eight-year-old cooper roberts was paralyzed from the waist down when he was shot from a rooftop, mister daniel. two year old, aiden mccarthy, he was orphaned when both his parents were murdered when they were shot from the roof top. sir, this tweet appears to suggest a planned murder. i would respectfully ask authorities and law enforcement to see whether this particular advertisement is even legal. mr. busse, according to various outlets, including the daily beast, the six hour corporation is selling a new weapon called the mc ex spear rifle. in fact, mr. bucy, you were recently quoted saying, quote, it will shoot through almost all of the bullet proof vests worn by law enforcement in the country right now. you stand by that statement, correct sir? >> the stated purpose for
sourcing that rifle was to defeat body armor on the field of war, so, i'm not stating anything that the company advertisement and that the sourcing information did not state. >> mister daniel, i presume you don't want your weapons to be harmed to law enforcement. will you commit that you will not sell a weapon that terrace their bulletproof vests? >> congressman, we sell the very best products made for self-defense in the world. >> so, you're not answering the question. it's a yes or no question. mr. but killoy, i assume you won't solve a weapon that tears through bulletproof russ? >> congressman, with all due respect, the ability to pierce body armor but goes with the ammunition of the firearm. you will not sell that ammunition either, will you? but >> congressman, we do not sell ammunition, we sell firearms, we sell a variety of caliber's, we do not sell a
mission. >> gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida, mr. donald, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. first and foremost, obviously, the committee room today, we have members from highland park and uvalde. for what you guys have had to go through, a loss of your loved ones, it's a tragedy, obviously, for you. for all of us, nobody wants to see these heinous acts occur. everybody is truly grieved by a. i think that for the families who are here, even the families who might be watching this hearing, you might be concerned about what happens here in congress, and not understanding why the tragedy that has been, you know, inflicted upon you is a part of a debate, or a part
of a back and forth between members of congress. i think it's important for not just the families, but for the american people to understand that when these tragedies occur, we grieve with you. we also have the responsibility for governing the nation. we do not have the ability, we do not have the ability, although sometimes previous congresses that abilities been taken, in my view, we do not have the ability to just simply pass laws because of tragedy or because of heartache. when we passed laws the appropriate way to conduct ourselves as a legislative body is to understand what has happened in our country, but that still having to apply the constitution, still having to understand and apply the various elements of natural law, and still having to apply a consistent fabric that all americans can live under and
can honor and can respect. these tragedies, they are crippling to see. but in and of themselves, those tragedies do not change the second amendment to the united states. i had a conversation in the hallway with one of the survivors of the highland park shooting. in our conversation, what was mentioned was, what about amending the constitution? i would add, to any one of my colleagues, if they wanted to go through the political and legislative process of amending the constitution, that is the way we set policy and law from a governing standpoint in the united states. i think it's important to kind of make that, we are going back and forth between ads and gun specifications. for the people here in this hearing, is important to understand why these
deliberations are happening in front of you. for the people who are watching on c-span or whatever, understand why these deliberations occur. we just can't, in my view, just pass something and do something for the sake of doing something. the history of congress is replete with congress doing something and often doing it wrong. and ignoring that what they did wrong, because you already had the -- parade. mr. busse, quick question for, you referred several times in your testimony today, that the weapons that we're talking about under an assault weapons ban are quote unquote weapons of war. i am paraphrasing your comments. are these weapons, the ones that are sold, the ones that are manufactured by the companies here today, the companies that aren't with us, are these the same weapons that are used by men and women of the united states military? >> with very minor differences, yes, they are.
in some cases, they are superior to the guns that were supplying to her soldiers. >> can you stipulate the differences between the guns are used by members of our military versus water are sold by retailers? >> that would be an awful long list, i think what you're getting as whether many of the gun supplied to the military have a selected fire switch, which means they can fire and three rounders fully auto versus semiautomatic. >> order men in military have or three round burst and fully automatic. is that available for sale in retail in the united states of america to citizens? >> not generally, no, there are many firearms instructors who know advocate that single fire, as in semi auto fire, is more effective and more deadly than three rounders or fully auto. >> advocating versus voters actually allowed on a firearm, those are two different things. wouldn't you agree? >> excuse me sir, i don't understand your question. >> if your position is that semi firing is somehow better than fully automatic or three run versus, those are different
distinctions, isn't that true? >> i didn't make that designation, there are many firearms instructors, including military firearms instructors and advocate for a single shot semi auto. >> the weapons that are used by the united states military, are they superior and frankly in stopping power to repel forces than what is sold on the open market today to americans? >> no sir, i don't believe so. >> i am talking to mrs. okafor, i'm sorry. >> i'm sorry, can you repeat that? >> i'm a little over, i think the chair for her indulgence. the weapons that are sold by retailers today, the subject of this hearing, are they similar and stopping power and effectiveness than what is used by members of the united states military, even though they have the same look? >> and i am 16 or am or an air 15 are different in the fact that you are able to have the burst or three around bursts or the fully automatic option that's readily available to
military versus having to have a class three license with a civilian has to have an obtain in order to have a firearm with that capacity. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> gentleman from maryland, mr. raskin, he's recognized for five minutes. >> thank, you mr.. mister daniel, you said the suffering of the children in uvalde and other victims of ar-15s was quote, unfathomable to you. does this mean you do not understand the impact of ar-15s on human flesh and the human body? >> congressman, what i was referring to is the horrible situation that these people had to endure and -- >> do we understand the impact on human flash of your product? >> yes, sir, every firearm is capable of killing a human. >> reclaiming my time, in his important testimony today, mr. busse reference the bloody
violence we experienced on january six 2021, something not mentioned by our colleagues who continue to think it is a tourist visit, and are clearly soft on criminal insurrection, and soft on criminal violence against our police officers. americans killing americans, that's a good description of what is taking place with gun violence today. on january 6th, we experienced the worst domestic insurrection against our government since the civil war. more than 150 officers were wounded and injured, several people were left dead in the rampage. the rioters shut down the counting of electoral votes and drove the house and senate of our chambers. although there is a huge arsenal pistols, rifles, ar-15s, and other firearms brought to the area by the insurrectionists on january 6th, the email and text traffic of the extremist groups reveals that many of them decided to temporarily leave their fire arms in specific sites outside of d.c. because of the district stringent gun laws until they thought the firearms would be necessary.
amazingly, in the wake of this savage insurrectionary tax against our government, the nra and its followers and congress continue to propound the idea that the constitution, specifically the second amendment, gives people the right to violently attack and overthrow the government of the united states. this so-called, insurrectionary theory, of the second amendment maintains that its purpose is to allow citizens to wage arm resistance if they think the government is being unfair or unjust. the reading is absurd, and implies in the face of the plaintiffs of the constitution, and at least seven different places that i count, clearly forbids and punishes armed resistance against the u.s. government. a few examples. the republican guarantee clause provides the u.s. guarantee any state in the union and republican form of government and to protect each of them against invasion and domestic violence. this is written in the constitution, specifically in response to rebellion, and armed resistance to the government which the founding
fathers strongly content. the treason clause states treason against the united states consists of lobbying war against them or adhering to their enemies what is violent insurrection against the government if not leveling war against the united states? section three of the 14th amendment says, anyone who has sworn an oath under the constitution who to defend it and support it betrays it by engaging in insurrection shall never be allowed to hold federal or state office again. one more example, article one, section eight, clause 15 says congress shall have the power to provide for calling for the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion, do our colleagues really believe that the constitution explicitly and repeatedly gives the government to power to suppress violent insurrection but the second amendment, an invisible ink, gives the people the right to engage in violent insurrection's? this is absurd and outlandish. when i pointed out, the only
substantive response i've got my colleagues is a quotation from patrick henry, and anti federalists to strongly oppose the constitution, precisely because he thought it gave the government too much power and the people not enough to rebel against the government. when i pointed this out my friend mr. roy of texas, who is by far the most articulate and able defender of this doctrine, concedes that i am right about the constitution, but shift over to talk about the declaration of independence, which i cheerfully concede is a revolutionary document, and explained why, after a long train of abuses by the crown and parliament, they needed to resolve the political demand of union with england, that is the whole point, we are governed by the constitution, which is positive law, and nowhere does it grant a right of insurrection, it opposes it in every turn, as a matter not of constitutional law but natural law, people can decide to overthrow their government, but
you do that on your own time, at your own risk, the constitution did not give you the right to destroy the constitution, and the government. another way to understand this point is to think about nonviolent civil disobedience, even nonviolent civil disobedience is not protected by our constitution, dr. king went to jail because they believed in civil rights and were willing to pay the cost, they never claimed that the constitution gives people the right to break the law, much less take up arms against the government, the facts are very clear, the second amendment does not give you the right to engage in insurrection, they should stop saying that, and justice scalia was extremely clear in the heller decision that the second amendment does not give an unlimited right to carry whatever guns you want wherever you want, i yield back to you, madam chair. >> the gentleman's overtime,, now recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, you are
recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair, we believe the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, period, particularly arms as the united states supreme court has set, particularly arms that are in common use, miss we okafor, are handguns in common use? >> they are, congressman. >> how about ar-15s, are they uncommon years? billions of people have them? >> our firearms used in self-defense? >> yes, 1.6 million every year. >> unfortunately, it is probably more common in light of the democrats ridiculous policies to defund the police, not prosecuting criminals when they do crimes, letting people who attack a united states congressman running for governor let him out on bail in the state of new york, that leads to the idea that people need guns to protect themselves, their family, and our property, right? >> correct, it is a human right. guaranteed by the constitution. >> our air fifteens used in
self-defense? >> yes, i actually describe them in my testimony. >> you train women to protect themselves, that is something you know about firsthand, you are out there working with women across the country to help train them so they are ready if some person wants to attack them, why they need a firearm to protect themselves, is that right? >> absolutely, yes. >> ar-15s are used to defend others from criminals, that is part of your training and what you are helping people understand. >> yes. >> mr. daniels, is it fairly common that your product is used to protect innocent people from criminals hours? >> yes, sir, as miss okafor stated, millions of times, hundreds of thousands enough to millions of times a year firearms are used in self-defense, including the one we make. >> that is becoming more and more popular people in their thinking about defending themselves, the, family and their property to use the firearm you make and manufacture, is that right?
>> that is correct, sir. >> the democrats, we should just cut the chase, the democrats do not like the second amendment, in the constitution the american people like the fact that we have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves, our family, our property, they like that fact it is a cumbersome process to amend and change the constitution, they cannot do that so they are going to ban certain types of weapons. they're going to call them assault weapons and try to ban them, or they are going to come manufacturers act and kind to sue them, this legislation the past the judiciary committee last week. that is their course of action. their beef is with the second amendment, they cannot change that. they are going to go around it. they go after gun manufacturers with this bill sponsored by our colleague, democrat colleague to allow don manufacturers to be sued for the actions of heinous, evil people who use firearms in the wrong and destructive way. isn't that right, miss okafor? >> that is correct, and i would
like to say that is why i have said vocally and geo a occurs that abolishing the atf is precisely that. it is unconstitutional, especially in the fact of the matter is that they use it as a bureaucratic way to go around an elected body to be able to put restrictions on firearms, that is why the atf should not exist. >> their beef with the second amendment is not limited to going after gun manufacturers and allowing the be sued, it is not limited to banning assault weapons or whatever else they want to ban, it is not limited to the ridiculous red flag concept, it is also what they did to the biography, to the treasury with operation choke point, where they tried to choke off the financing of gun manufacturers as a way to get at the second amendment, that is because they know they cannot do, it they cannot change it, they use the constitution like they're supposed to if they're going to try and change, it is that accurate? >> that is correct. >> madam chair, i hope this
effort goes nowhere, looks like according to the press today, democrats will bring up the assault weapons ban, that is a win for liberty and the second amendment, not going to bring up the bill that mr. ship is sponsoring that would allow gun manufacturers to be sued, those are hopefully some winds for the american people and a win for the constitution, with, that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, thank you madam chair, mister daniel, i just have some factual questions, in 2005 what was daniel defenses total sales revenue that came from the sale of assault weapons? >> i don't know, sir, we gave that information to the committee, i just do not know it off the top of my head >> you have a sense of about 1% it was? the revenue from assault weapons? >> no, sir. >> do you know what percentage
of daniel defenses sales revenues and profits came from assault weapons in 2020? >> sir, would you describe an assault weapon, i am trying to understand. >> the assault weapon is the term the industry created, semi automatic weapons based on military designs and features, it is a term that the industry coined in 1980, based on that you have a sense of what the sales revenue and profits were in 2020? >> sir, i disagree with your data characterization of the type of firearm, assault weapons are fully automatic weapons used in war. the weapons we saw -- >> in the way i'm defining it, do you have a sense of how much the sales revenue was? >> sir, we are a rifle company
that sells semiautomatic rifles, most of our. . >> and the air 15, what percentage of your revenue comes from that? >> i do not know, exactly, sir. >> approximately? >> most of our, way cells any automatic rifles and bolt action rifles. >> i don't know that? 10%? 20%? 50%, certainly you should know how much basic revenue you are making off of something. >> are you asking about revenue or percentage of revenue? >> the percentage of revenue of ar-15s, how much, is it is a factual question, you can say about 10%, but 50%, about 90%. >> i would say probably 80% of our sales. >> 80%, in 2005 you know how much revenue was from ar-15s or similarly type rifles? >> no, sir, i do not have that
information. >> okay, would you guess it was about 10%, 20%, 50%? >> in 2005, sir, we did not sell ar-15s in 2005. >> so, any similar weapons, you did not, that is because there was the assault weapons ban. i just want to be clear, you are saying 80% of your revenue now comes from ar-15s. in 2005, i would like you to submit to this committee year by year a statistic of how much money you are making off of ar-15s, assault weapons, or if you do not agree with my definition of semiautomatic weapons like ar-15s that have military designs and features, which is the industry definition. i would like you to submit that to this committee from 2005 onward, i am a bit perplexed that you do not know how much revenue you are making off of the sales of these weapons. 80% is a lot, i am surprised you do not know how it is tracked, i think your
shareholders may be surprised by that, will the gentleman yield? >> now, not right now. is it for a question? >> yes, for a question. >> let me finish this on my time. >> i have a question for you, i just asked a. >> is my time being counted? >> this is the gentleman's time. >> i am happy after my time is expired to edge to my time but i want my time to not be interrupted. mr. killoy in response to more than two thirds of your shareholders you have been called on to produce human rights assessment of the products you manufacture, when mr. killoy will this report be complete? >> congressman, actually less than 50% of our shareholders voted for that proposal, however, it did pass at our most recent annual meeting, we plan to consider that in due course at the next upcoming board meeting, however i would remind the committee that that was an advisory board. >> let me say this, do you
currently track crimes committed by the products that you sell? >> no, sir, would we do not. >> would you commit to tracking that as part of this report and human rights assessment that you are now required to do? >> congressman, respectfully, that is not our job. we are not law enforcement. we do not have the resources, training. >> respectfully, the -- board >> monitor anything -- >> the board wants you to do a human rights assessment. the first thing you would want to know is how many people were injured and killed based on those products that do that assessment. you are saying you would not do that? >> sir, it's actually a shareholder vote, the board of which one of nine members, we will consider that and consider how we go forward on doing that. frankly, we do not violate human rights. to say we do is just not correct. >> i am just saying we are shareholders have said. >> the gentleman's time has
expired, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. keller is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairwoman, and ranking member calmer and our witnesses for being here today. the second amendment protects americans constitutional right to keep and bear arms. as a gun owner myself, i have immense respect for the responsibility that comes with owning and operating a firearm. miss okafor, as an instructor can you please explain to us, walk us through some of the best practices you teach regarding firearms storage and safety? >> of course, depending on what type of firearm but in general, overall when it comes to storage it is usually based on what is best for that person and their home, also if they will be taking it on that person outside of their home
and keeping it in their home. usually it is to keep it in a safe place, a place that is readily accessible to them, those who are able to use it safely. and then stored to make sure it is something that is not in plain sight to anybody who is not able to use a firearm in a safe manner. >> basically, the responsibility that comes with the right of owning a firearm? >> absolutely, it comes down to the end of the day to the individual, the family members to make sure that those who are in the home are able to properly use a firearm in a safe matter. i am a mother of two children. when they are of age, as early as they can i'm going to make sure they know how to properly use and store a firearm. that is the responsibility of any firearm instructor and owner. >> thank you. there were almost 40 million background checks performed last year, yet, some criminals seem to still go under the radar. what roles and regulations are
in place for those who lawfully possess and use firearms? >> the rules and regulations go from safety, making sure that they know the safety roles. making sure they know their target and what is behind it, they know that any firearm should be seen as loaded, there are several different safety measures that any instructor is going to impart upon their person that they are working with when it comes down to it, and it comes down to their home and environment, and what is best for their environment to make sure that they are able to defend themselves, and their home, in a quick manner. >> do you think stricter laws on firearm manufacturers would curb violent crime? >> now, we already have strict laws on gun manufacturers, the fact of the atf has already rolled the fact that the
typical person, it is very expensive to even acquire any type of fully automatic firearm to begin with. the accused amendment in the 1986 amendment that kept it very, very hard for most people to have any type of lower to middle class socioeconomic status to be able to achieve to have a firearm in that sense. when it comes down to it, most people cannot afford most ar-15s because of the prices that are behind it. when it comes down to it atf and the xfl laws that go with atf but many restrictions on gun manufacturers already as it is. >> it was already mentioned about the estimation of how many guns are used in self-defense. the cdc order study, estimated 500,000 3 million times a year
and self-defense. how additional rules and regulations impact america's ability to protect themselves, especially women and people in communities of high crime? >> these additional gun restrictions have already shown to restrict strictly those of a lower socioeconomic status, i know we are referring to this buy now pay later, the thing is that really what it is going down to is they're making it harder, putting a financial barrier on those who only quote crime is that they do not have the means of paying for something. which is their fundamental right to exercise at a second amendment. that is, unfortunately, what we are seeing when we see these gun restrictions. we are seeing a key people who are able to protect themselves in their family but are unable to do so because of financial barriers. >> thank you, it is time for democrats to stop villainizing
law-abiding citizens for the rights and enforce current law by enforcing gun enforcement and criminals. as president reagan once said, we must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty, rather than the lawbreaker. it is time to restore the american precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. thank, you i yield back. >> the gentleman yelled back. the gentlewoman from california, miss porter, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, other industries take seriously their responsibility to manufacture products that protect consumers. with firearms, this responsibility is a matter of life and death. one study found that nearly 40% of accidental gun deaths could be prevented with technology that prevents not authorize users from firing guns. these ideas are not new, the
study was published nearly 20 years ago. yet, technology like fingerprint scanners or bracelets with radio frequency identifier's are nowhere near the standard for firearms. mr. killoy, how many of your firearms come equipped with fingerprints getting mechanisms? >> congresswoman, none of them currently come equipped with such a device. >> none. mister daniel, how about daniel defense? how many other weapons chemical fingerprint identity stairs? >> congresswoman, we do not sell any type of firearm this way, our customers have not asked for it. >> that is a no. this is myself and, mr. killoy it scans my fingerprint each time i go to unlock at. this is a weapon? >> no, ma'am. >> can this fire bullets that shred peoples vital organs? this found?
>> no, congresswoman, it cannot. >> then why does this device require more steps to operate in your company's firearms, which have been used in accidental shootings, mass shootings, and homicides? >> congresswoman, respectfully, yourself and does not generate internal pressure upwards of 60,000 square inch. the operating system of a firearm is extremely dynamic, extremely high pressure, lots of moving pieces, and first and foremost -- >> respectfully, reclaiming my time. these firearms, these fingerprint scanners are offered and some firearms. some manufacturers sell this, and they work. your company, and mr. daniels company, chooses not to. let me demonstrate again, how long this takes. it is instant, it is instant when i pick up my phone.
certain safety features, other safety features like chamber loaded indicators, magazine disconnects are required for anti gun sold in my home state of california. a magazine disconnect prevents a gun from firing if the magazine is not attached. my kids nerf guns have the safety feature. this decades old safety feature prevents guns from shooting bullets that remain in the chamber after a magazine has been removed. mr. killoy, do all ruger rifles that have magazines come equipped with magazine disconnects? >> congresswoman, magazine disconnects typically are a feature offered on a handgun. a pistol, in particular. >> to all of your hand guns or pistols have magazine disconnect, sir? >> some do, some do not. >> okay, some, do some do not. mr. ruger, do your guns have magazine disconnect? sorry, mister daniel, do your handguns have magazine disconnects? >> ma'am, we do not sell
handguns. >> and your large magazine ground do not have that feature either? >> our rifles do not have that feature, no ma'am. >> magazine disconnect are also not new. these features come standard in every ground that is sold in my home state. and, those features prevent accidental deaths. in 20 2149 children died in incidents where the person did not intend to fire a gun. kids are dying because you refused to implement these technologies. this acknowledges were started and develop decades ago. will you commit to adding fingerprint scanners to every firearm you manufacture? >> now, congresswoman, we will not. >> mister daniel, same question. will your company commit to adding fingerprint scanners to every daniel defense firearm? >> congresswoman, our guns fire
when there is a bullet in the chamber. it does it does not fire when there is not a bull in a chamber. a gun should be kept, does not want to be fired. the honor does not want to fire it they should not keep a round in the chamber. >> the question is, will you commit to adding fingerprint scanners as a safety technology to every daniel defense firearm? yes or no? >> no ma'am, our customers are not interested in that. >> mr., killoy will your company commit to adding magazine disconnect to every magazine loaded rug or firearm? >> congresswoman, we have in many of our pistols, our semiautomatic pistols we offer that is a future. if our customers choose to buy a firearm that has a magazine safety disconnect they can. other times they choose not to have that particular feature. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. >> the gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank, you madam chair, this
hearing is yet another transparent attempt to malign americans and american companies. my democratic colleagues correctly now that there has been an increase in violent crime in this country over the past three years. but, incorrectly claim that firearm manufacturers are contributing to or a fuel in violent crime the laws of supply and demand apply to the firearms market in the same way they apply to other markets. firearm manufacturers are responding to demands of american people who are experiencing dramatic increases in homicides and aggravated assault in their communities. americans who are seeking to protect themselves and their families, a right recognized in this country by our second amendment. democrats in congress continue to infringe on this right and shame law-abiding companies for ensuring that americans have the means to protect themselves. i think each of you for your testimony today miss okafor thank you for the work you do to promote saving responsible firearm ownership. i appreciate your discussion of the relative benefits of the ar
platform. i discussed just very markup last week on this topic. which is interesting, because the chairs of these two committees are running against each other. we have competing, we just do the same hearings back and forth. i mentioned that my wife actually prefers the ar-15 because it is easier to handle. it is more stable for her. and, in a case of defense and the need for stability. she would be more comfortable with an ar-15. features of the ar-15 make it incredibly viable weapon for defense. you discuss some of the recent trends in firearm ownership. i will tell you that i talked to multiple gun dealers and retailers in my district, who tell me that the number one new owner trend in my district are women who are democrats, which
i find interesting. miss okafor, can you discuss the trends with us, please? >> absolutely, what i discussed earlier is that the fastest growing demographic of gun owners are african american women. we have also seen, as you said, with the fact that a lot of african american women tend to be part of the democratic party. it is honestly nothing to do with politics when it comes down to transcending politics because this is a human right. it has nothing to do with you being a republican, democrat, libertarian. it has to do with you understanding to our right to defend yourself, and you want to be able to do so. many people in america are doing just that. >> and you discussed it, what are you hearing is the rationale for these new demographics that are coming out like this? >> particularly for women and general, when i have found many
times, particularly other mothers saying that they know that at the end of the day it comes down to them to defend themselves, defend their children, particularly during the pandemic when, unfortunately, in many instances people were not sure if police officer caught them in time. because of what was going on, many people including what was going on where during that chaotic two years found it necessary to purchase a firearm, particularly for self-defense. >> mr. daniel, mr. smith, what is your understanding about the motivations of americans purchasing a firearm for the first time? mister daniel, you first. >> congressman, i believe the people are buying. new gun owners who have never owned a gun before our buying guns by the millions because they are afraid. they are afraid because of the violence they say in the riots, they are afraid because
criminals are not being prosecuted, they are afraid because the crime that they see. and they are making a life decision to change from being a non gun owner to a gun owner. i suspect, sir, but they will also be making the decision, a life-changing decision in the way they vote. >> thank you, mr. smith? >> congressman, i agree with what we have heard from miss okafor and mr. daniel. we are seeing a much greater increase and people purchasing firearms, particularly the first firearm for the purpose of defending their homes and corporate person. we saw that increase from the beginning of 2020 on, as related to things going on in our communities and our society. the covid pandemic, defund the police movement, and civil unrest. as well as the fact that we are entering an election cycle where the second amendment was on the ballot, and a lot of
people felt that was also a critical factor in their decision to purchase a firearm. >> thank you, madam chair, before you take my time away i have an article i would like to submit into the record. >> allowed. >> thank you. >> the gentleman's time has expired, the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. thank you so much. mr. busse, why are americans afraid? >> i think that's a complex question. they are afraid for many reasons. we've had societal turmoil in the last five and a half or six years for sure. >> let's get to this. you know, gun manufacturers have sought to boost their sales by promoting their ties to the military law enforcement. smith and wesson referred to this as, quote, halo effect, in 2016 earnings call with their investors, their ceo said, it gives their product a lot of credibility if it's used,
adopted, and well regarded by that professional community because the consumer does pay tension to that. you know, miss samson, could you explain with the so-called halo effect, how it is and how deceptive it is? >> yes, thank you for the question. the halo effect is basically when the companies, smith & wesson in this case, puts itself under the halo of the military. they are so esteemed in society, if you want to have the firepower that they have, you should get our weapon. in the case of smith & wesson it was especially absurd for them to do that, they don't actually supply the military at all. >> you know, mr. daniel, the committee obtained advertisement by your company, uses, you know, to sell your weapons, it includes images of individuals and fully geared military tactical gear, body armor, rifles. are those, those advertisements intended to increase armed forces or law enforcement? yes or no? >> yes.
yes, is the answer. >> the answer is no. these weapons are intended to be told to civilians. the advertisement inherently wouldn't target anyone other than civilians, just like the killer uvalde. another one of the gun manufacturers this committee has also investigated was sings our, often plays these tactics as well. i'd like to put one other ads on the screen, if i may. do y'all see this? this is an ad forcing an mc ex assault rifle, it depicts troops in combat zone with modified assault weapons, including one with a grenade launcher. the text of the ad emphasizes that the rifles -- makes, it quote, ready for every possible mission. in a not so subtle reference to the military style and use. these are not pictures and themes that suggest that assault rifles are used to be used for hunting, or sport shooting.
mr. busse, how is this imagery and rhetoric dangerous when the primary advertising target is civilians with little if any military firearms training? >> well, these are very serious weapons. it's a very common practice now in the firearms industry, it did not used to be, it is very common in the firearms industry marketing practice now to market too or using special operators or trained military officers or military weaponry that focus them, focus the marketing at consumers. that's with the larger and profitable marketing segment is. >> you know, things fire sold an ar-15 style rifle used by the mass shooter to kill 49 people in pulse nightclub in orlando, florida. in 2016, those were used in las vegas in that -- the company, literally, are selling the version of its new rifle that they have contracted out, there and 14 or whatever
for the u.s. army. they are selling the same configuration, that is near match to one american soldiers will be using in battle. we shouldn't be surprised when young men purchased these weapons to be more like soldiers in the picture. we shouldn't be surprised when they try to act like them either. these dangerous ads must stop, they're breeding domestic extremists and putting communities of color, communities that are incredibly vulnerable, especially children in schools and minority groups, at grave risk. it's incredibly important that we call this out for what it is, they are targeting folks to do, to basically target the most vulnerable by selling it that way. this imagery is not towards soldiers. it's two civilians. they are advertising it in a way, again, that depicts it to endanger peoples lives. it's incredibly, again, important that we understand,
this is intentional. the halo effect is real. it is profit driven. lives are lost because, again, they don't care who dies. they care how many guns they're selling to people, the more people they control, you can be like law enforcement and soldiers that have been trained in military battle, then they're gonna be able to, again, expose us to more deaths and more violence,. with that i yield, madam chair. >> the gentlelady has yielded. i recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i think i've heard it all. i've heard my good friends, democrat friends asking why people feel unsafe, it is because of the dismantling of the police departments that they feel unsafe. i hear my good friends on the other i'll tell manufacturers how to build a gun when i don't think they've ever had any experience building a gun. i think i've heard my friends on the other side of the aisle talking about concerns for
civilians, what's in the world? where is the concern for the 300 per day youths that are dying from fentanyl because it's coming across the border because of this administration's lack of will to stop an invasion at the border? where are the hearings about the supply shortage that people can't unload a plane? we put a man on a moon, we can't unload a ship. you know, what about the hundred and 54 cities that have been torn up with no repercussions from those who did it? the list goes on and on. and, you know, i keep hearing gun violence. gun violence. i was talking my good friend, mr. clyde, we both agreed that we've all had a lot of guns. i have, he has. he has far more than me. i've never had a gun get violent with me, never in my life had i had a gun get violent with me. i have seen where people are using guns for the wrong
reason. just like the ford that went through the christmas parade that went over people. it's by deranged people, it's by mentally unstable people. it's insane some of the things that my democrat colleagues want to do. make the gun manufacturers liable? you know, it's unbelievable that you would make the makers of automobiles or liable for every wreck, or those who get drunk on jack daniels, make them liable. make the jack daniels company liable. it doesn't make sense. that's just too usual with what's going on today in this country. particularly with this administration. mr. smith, president biden said gun manufacturers are completely immune to repercussions when it kind? is this a correct statement? >> congressman, i'm curious, he directed that at me, chris caloy? >> yes, you can take the
question. >> yes, sir, we are not immune from prosecution. if we make a defective product, you know, certainly we are subject to normal product liability, like everyone else. the protection of lawful commerce and arms act, which is typically what we're talking about here, it really qualifies existing common law. you know, in the average time, the crime that the atf has recently reported, it's over seven years from one of firearm's first legally sold. on average, if that gun is uncovered in a crime and used in a crime, seven years time to crime. again, to try to hold a firearms manufacture liable for that crime without criminal activity, it just does not make sense. it does not comport with our jurisprudence in this country. i respectfully would suggest that that's not the right way to approach this problem. >> okay, i heard my democrat friends asking about what kind of profit you're making? what is your company making as
far as dollars earned every year? has the municipality ever return the tax dollars that supported public education? has any of the money that your company pays to support our first responders ever been returned? has any of the municipalities return the money that goes to law enforcement? >> no, congressman, it has not. >> they take your tax money, yet, my democrat colleagues who are basically trying to say that you're making obscene profits, you compete with other gun companies, don't you? you don't have a monopoly, do you? >> no, sir. where one of, right now, about 17,000 federally licensed firearms manufacturers licenses that have been granted. >> so, you compete on the open market, it's called capitalism. many of my democratic colleagues there, politicians,
they have never experienced making money or losing money. if a politician is to tell you how to build a gun, i think i've heard it all. it's the most ludicrous, in the same question that i could even think of. i want to thank you for appearing today. thank you for answering the questions. each of you, it is, we are not going to lead, we're gonna try not to let them strip the second amendment. we're gonna fight as much as we can to stop that. thank you so much. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, the gentlelady from ohio, miss brown, is now recognized for questions. thank you, madam chair. four years. >> you need a mic. >> thank you. for years, gun manufacturers have operated with little to no oversight and have been shielded from accountability by nra members of congress and conservative supreme court. they're irresponsible advertising and sales practices
have flooded communities, like mine, with weapons of war, resulting in loss of life and generational trauma. this history mirrors the unchecked greed of pharmaceutical companies who are only now facing the consequences of the harm caused by their own irresponsible advertising and the rule they've played in the opioid crisis. it is far past time for gun manufacturers who face some accountability. in an effort to maximize the summertime, mr. daniels, i will be asking you a series of yes or no questions. so, mister daniel, are you familiar with the ongoing opioid crisis and the role that irresponsible advertising plating getting millions of americans, including many ohioans, addicted to drugs? >> i'm somewhat familiar with an opioid problem, i'm not real familiar with the advertising. >> well, i would encourage you
to then look into the well documented reports about these advertising practices and familiarize yourself with the guilty plea of purdue pharma, which has filed and resulted in billions of dollars of fines that they have been directed to pay as a result of their dangerous advertising. you will see an ad, mister daniel, i have a photo of some promotional items purdue pharma once distributed to promote the consumption of oxycontin. as an american, do you have any concerns with the marketing of oxycontin that could've been viewed as trivializing the addiction and deaths that occurred from it? yes or no please. >> i'm not familiar with this advertisement, i'm not sure what they're trying to do here. >> let me help you. these irresponsible advertisements are not exclusive to the pharmaceutical industry. you are companies have also continued to make irresponsible advertisements for these dangerous weapons. mister daniel, do you
understand that fire arms your company produces markets and cells are deadly and dangerous weapons? yes or no. >> congresswoman, we make the best firearms for self-defense. >> yes or no. >> they have to be dangerous to be good. >> yes or no. >> -- >> let me help, to be clear, the u.s. law does consider a firearm to be a deadly weapon. so, let me ask you another question, do you believe it is appropriate to market guns in such a manner, you should see an ad that your company produced when gun deaths are now the leading cause of child deaths in the country and a teenager used one of your weapons to kill 19 children just a month ago? >> you said a lot. what was the question? >> do you believe it is appropriate to market guns in such a manner as your
advertising has done when gunboats are now the leading cause of child deaths in the country and a teenager used one of your weapons to kill 19 children just a month ago? key it's a yes or no question. >> this advertisement that you're showing is a safety advertisement. >> is it appropriate? it's a yes or no question. >> this is an appropriate ad for safety. >> to advertise -- it's a yes or no, is that a yes? >> it's, this advertisement -- >> reclaiming my time. you are familiar with the marketing practices of gun manufacturers, can you speak to why this kind of advertising is dangerous in which groups this advertising this advertising is often directed that? >> i can testify to the fact that advertising practices in the firearms industry have changed radically in the last ten or 15 years. i am very concerned about the
degree to which there is now irresponsible advertising encouraging or marketing to irresponsible activities. >> thank you. >> madam chair, i represented community that is facing a gun violence epidemic. just like during the opioid crisis, irresponsible companies are pumping vast amounts of dangerous products into our communities without a care for the lives that have been lost or the inherently reality of their products. history is repeating itself in gun manufacturers, they are playing fast and loose with their advertising. if they do not take responsibility for the weapons of war they are selling to the public, congress will gladly step in and do so for them. with that, madam chair, i yield back the remainder of my time. >> the gentlelady yields back.
the gentlelady from south carolina, miss mace, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank, you madam chair. i want to thank everyone who is here today, particularly for the families who have experienced enormous grief in their lives. thank you for having the courage to show up on the hill today for what is, i'm sure, a very difficult day for each and every one of you. i hill from south carolina, from south carolina's first congressional district, unfortunately, we are no stranger to gun violence or mass shootings. seven years ago, the summer we had mother manual, a white supremacy, bought a gun, went down to charleston south carolina in the first congressional district and murdered nine black church members. on april 26, there was another shooting in the parking lot next door to a little league baseball game over 30 shots were fired. the video showing the terrified children crawling off the baseball field and their parents in fear in pepper hill,
north charleston. we've seen these spikes in crimes and then shootings, it's not just crime with firearms, it's crime, it's women who have been raped, rape syrup, assault syrup, aggravated assault syrup. mental health issues are up in this country over the last two years. political crime is up, we saw someone who showed up on the steps of the supreme court justice, basically, armed and dangerous, ready to kill. i have seen political crime of my own, in my own neighborhood. i've had my kharkiv, i've had my life threatened, someone threatened to hang me two weeks ago. so, we're seeing an increase in violence all across the country, regardless of political spectrum. but right now, this hearing today, they're shouting into the microphones, there's vilifying of gun manufacturers, there is debate on, you know, a bill we might vote on this week that were not to be able to vote on right now because it's not progressive enough. when we're talking about today isn't getting at the heart or the root of the problem. and, we are gonna have this hearing, it's gonna be theater,
it's gonna be a performance, a performance today for the cameras that are here. we are not going to solve the problem of violent crime or violent crimes of firearms. and we've got folks on this committee that want to defund the police. the reason democrats can have a vote on banning certain types of firearms is because there's other legislation out there that doesn't go far enough that funds police, doesn't defund them. we can't have a real conversation about what's getting at the root of the problem. we had highland park, devastatingly a few weeks ago, seven people were killed. well, just last weekend, just a few days ago in the city of chicago, 65 people were shot, five people were killed. this is every single weekend in the city of chicago, where they have gun control measures, and they are not working. and, this is a very emotional, it's personal to me, it means a lot in my district. we've got to get to the root of the problem. many things that we could be
talking about today, the active shooter alert that we passed to the house few weeks ago, one step in the right direction. but what i've learned in my research trying to figure out gun crimes in this country, most of the legislation that were tackling at the federal and state level will not address the issue whatsoever. miss samson, i have a few questions and miss okafor i have a few questions with a little bit of time i've left. miss sampson, my first question for you today, does a gun commit crime? commit a crime? >> individuals with guns commit crimes. >> yes, thank you. >> is there any other industry in the country where we punish the manufacture of a product that has made legally, purchased legally, that might later be used to break the law? do we do that? we punish manufactures of alcohol, cars, or knives for crimes that may be committed with those products later? >> so, the distinction there, thank you for that question, there is bennett conflation. we're not trying to hold manufactures accountable for other peoples activities. we're trying to hold
manufacturers accountable for their activities in the market. when it comes to that, we do that. the example -- >> and reclaim my time, real quick, i've a couple more questions. but thank you. i would argue, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they are making it more about that than the other. so, recently, we passed legislation up here that would ban certain firearms under the age of 21. did you know that dylan roof, who killed the mother emmanuel nine, he was 21 of the age when he bought his gun, he was also 21 when he committed that crime. miss samson, do you know the percentage of folks across the country who are picked up with a firearms illegally? you know percentage or maybe charged with a crime and were convicted? >> i do not. >> it's hard to get that data, in fact, in the state's south carolina, when we had this vote on this bill a couple weeks ago, i learned that the vast majority of crimes committed with guns in the state of south carolina, i'm sure other states are different, the vast majority are gonna be the same, over 3000 last year alone, but
the vast majority of crimes of guns are committed by people over the age of 21. thank you, i yield back. -- she is recognized. >> thank, you madam chair. i would like to talk about how gun manufacturers market weapons of war to young people today. in 2012, the editor of junior shooters magazine row, and i quote, each person who is introduced to the shooting sport and has a positive experience it is another vote in favor of keeping our american heritage and freedom alive, unquote. he continued, quote, they may not be able, they may not be old enough to vote now, they will be in the future. my first question, mr. daniel, mr. daniel, do you agree that getting young people interested in firearm ownership is positive for the industry's long term profits and viability? yes or no? >> congresswoman, we actually started a foundation to help
train young children to learn how to use firearms. >> okay, reclaiming my time. my question is, do you agree that getting young people interested in firearm ownership is positive for the industry's long term profits and viability? yes or no? >> congresswoman, gun safety is important to our company. >> i wasn't asking, reclaiming my time, i'm not asking about gun safety, i am asking about whether or not you agree that getting young people interested in firearm ownership is positive for the industry's long term profits or viability? can you please answer my exact question. yes or no? >> yes. parents buy guns for their children all the time. >> yeah, i ask, because gun manufacturers in play strategies to zero in on young people. this marketing and mainstreaming of weapons of war in children's hands shows up in shocking and disturbing places.
in the world's tourist mecca of orlando, florida, even in miami, firing weapons is a tourist attraction, even visitors as young as 10 to 13 years old. this promotional package from the lock and load machine gun experience. as you can see right here. mister daniel, you've included children in your advertisements on social media market, correct? >> congresswoman, if you're referring to the ad -- >> i am asking you if you included children in your advertisements on social media marketing? yes or no? >> yes, but we're not marketing to the children. >> okay, it's a simple question. you have included children in your social media market. i am reclaiming my time. in fact, you post images of pop stores like postpone posing with a machine gun, and hashtags like hashtag gun porn and hashtag pew pew. yes or no? >> the gun that post malone was
-- >> did you or did you not, reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time, excuse me, sir, i am reclaiming my time. did you post -- mr. daniel, mr. daniel, i am trying to ask you a question. did you post a social media post with post malone posing with the machine gun and the hashtags gun porn and pew pew, yes or no? >> -- did you do that? >> no, ma'am, we did not. i can produce the social media post if you'd like. >> that's fine, if you'd like to. the gun was not a machine gun, it's a semiautomatic firearm. >> were splitting hairs. clearly, clearly the gentleman is acknowledging that they posted something and were splitting hairs over whether you call the weapon a machine gun. this strategy basically turns killing machines into social media thirst traps for young people who will see these
weapons as sexy, hip, and a lowering. the gentleman acknowledge that they have children and their social media. they had a social media star that is appealing to children, posted with a machine gun, and hashtags gun porn and pew. it really boggles the mind. mister daniel, you've been remotely worried that these youth focus marketing a tactics appeal to impulsive teens we recognize can't even be trusted to buy cigarettes or beer when they're under 21? are you worried about that at all? >> congresswoman, we are focused on teaching young people to use guns responsibly and safely. >> okay, reclaiming my time. the social media and marketing that you do to children is not remotely focus on safety nor is it trying to do anything other than having guns be more appealing to children.
just as i lose my time, miss samson, have there been any studies that correlate how the marketing tactics used by mr. daniel and other companies are related to incidents of gun violence among kids and adolescents? >> yes, there in my written testimony. >> i'm sorry? >> yes, they are in my written testimony. basically, it has to do with the fact that young people are susceptible, especially susceptible to messages from advertisers. so, when you tell children that these guns will give them more adrenaline, you use first person shooter games to promote firearms, things of that nature, it draws and young people who are more vulnerable and maybe not able to sort out reality from fiction. >> the lady's time has expired. >> thank you, madam chair, i appreciate the opportunity. i yield back. >> okay, i just want to remind members that the chair has been even-handed while allowing members of both sides of the aisle latitude with respect to their five minutes today. ask that recognize members not
be interrupted except by the chair. so, now, mr. fallon, you are recognized from texas. >> thank you, madam chair. witnesses and colleagues, i appreciate the opportunity to examine a critical industry that helps protect the freedom of american citizens every day. miss okafor, i just wanted to say, great to see you again, county strong. >> good to see you too. >> it seems strange to me that this committee has decided to bring in some of the largest firearm manufacturers in the country but not the attorney general who is actually in charge of enforcing our gun laws. who conducts oversight on the atf, the fbi, and other pertinent agencies, or why this committee hasn't brought in city and state attorneys who are refusing to uphold the law. a lot of these democratic areas. why are we discussing a scourge of violent crime in those same democratic-controlled areas?
fact of the matter is, more gun laws and restrictive gun laws do not lessen crime. i have to restate the last thing i said in our previous second amendment infringement hearing, that if you look at countries, for instance, el salvador, jamaica, venezuela, honduras, they have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world, they're also the most dangerous countries in the world with the highest homicide and violent crime rates. let's not, it shouldn't escape predators that democratic -controlled cities in our country with the most restrictive gun laws in our nation have actually higher murder rates than those aforementioned countries. st. louis has a higher murder rate than el salvador. so does baltimore. it's actually safer to visit and live in venezuela than it is to live and visit detroit, michigan.
50 years ago, there were 180 million guns in this country, the murder rate was 9.6 400,000. just before covid, there are almost 400 million guns in the country, at the murder rate was six per hundred thousand. again, more gun laws, that doesn't equal less crime. mr. busse, i have a quick question for you. you are a gun owner, you're a firearms executive, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> do you own five guns personally? >> yes, i own five. >> do you own more than ten? >> yes, i do. >> so, fair to say that you know a lot about different types of guns? >> i know some about some types of guns. >> civilian ar-15, is that a fully automatic weapon? >> no, sir. >> okay. there are several states that have so-called assault weapon bans, is that correct? >> there are some, yes, sir. >> or the uniform? are they exactly the same? are they different? >> i'm not an expert on each
state law, i do not know. >> you don't know if they're exactly the same, cookie cutter. >> i don't. >> they're not. i think it's because maybe, just maybe, we can't even seem to define what an assault weapon is. that is a vague term, left up for interpretation. and, mr. busse, you're on record, if i'm not mistaken, correct me, calling guns, a weapons of war, i heard my colleagues say this as well. >> calling i'm not sure your question? >> have you called firearms weapons of war? >> i have not called all firearms weapons of war. >> we have called some weapons of war? >> yes, some farms are weapons of war. >> when you are a firearms executive, did you market the -- >> i marketed and sold 1911 style pistols, yes, sir. >> they were the farm of the united states military from world war i to vietnam, over 50 years? >> they were the defensive handgun of choice for most military operations. >> they were! they were a weapon of war!
when i find offensive by that term, my colleague just said it as well, i own an ar-15. it's not a weapon of war. i don't want to hurt anybody. it is a defensive weapon. it is a tool to allow me to protect my property, far more importantly, my family, my children, and my wife. i am glad i'm not giving it up, no matter what. some of these laws that we're talking about, whether they're grandfathered or not, they're gonna make good law-abiding citizens criminals. by definition, criminals don't follow the laws anyway. that's why i own one. so, we have a bell, from our colleague from rhode island, it's hr 1808. it's an assault weapons ban, it makes it a crime to import, sell, manufacture, or possess semi automatic weapons. to put plainly, this is an outright ban all semi automatic weapons, it's political feeder,
it's a farce. i'm sure there's many -- that don't support it. it's a joke, it's a disservice to our constitution. thank you very much, madam chair, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from vermont, mr. walsh, recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. madam chair, vermont is a rural state, we've had a tradition of responsible gun use. things have changed. things have changed deeply in vermont. the day after the parkland shootings, we came within an eyelash of having a mass shooting at a school in fair haven, vermont, where a young man would purchase weapons, he bragged that he was gonna have a higher body count than anyone else before him. it was only because of the extraordinary work of our local and state police in our school officials thought that was stopped. the night after that incident,
near death of those kids almost came about, there was a school meeting, as good a job as our police had done, and our school folks had done, parents were expressing some anger and concern. what it was, it is the apprehension and every parent that they have this country now, that the security that they had when they put their child on the bus or left their child off at the school house, that they would come home safe. that has been shattered. it's not just a one-off incident in parkland. we're seeing it time after time, it's the ar-15 that is the weapon of choice. by the way, that weapon of choice, it's not accidental. 18 year old can by that, they can't buy a beer. it's a weapon of choice because
of the marketing. be a man, get this, on the road to manhood. this is the way you can show how big a person you are. it is marketing this to vulnerable people who have wild expectations of what it means to be a man. so, mr. busse, how much marketing do you do? is this worth it? >> maybe, could you restate the question, sir? are you asking how much marketing -- >> how much marketing are you doing? >> i am no longer in the firearms industry, sir. i am not doing any marketing. >> mister daniel, -- >> yes, sir, repeat the question? >> how much marketing are you doing? >> we're marketing very much like we have been for the past 15 -- >> i'm interrupting, i apologize. the marketing that is being
done is much like joe campbell, the cigarette companies were marketing cancer and disguising it as how to be a man, how to be a big shot. is it worth a? give any thoughts about what's your weapons are being used to do that has killed children? do you have any expectation that people should look to you to address this? yeah >> thank you for your question, sir. i believe we should address this. i think the way to address it is just, as you said, local law enforcement, working with the schools and working at a local level to figure out how to stop murders. >> so, you're saying there is no gun manufacturers me? i listened to gun manufacturers have nothing to do with, it just like cigarette manufacturers had nothing to do with people dying of cancer, it was a voluntary choice. let me ask you about mr. fallon's line of question.
he means ar-15s to protect his family. obviously, he means that. the don't we need a society where we can expect our law enforcement folks to be reliable enforcers? is the every man, woman, and child for himself and herself and each one of us needs an ar-15 status settler disputes and defend ourself against insult? >> congressman, as i understand it, most of your, many of your constituents are over an hour away from the police. yes, the police are very important, they are our first responders. but until they get there, sir, the american citizen is the first responder. >> great, so, what's you have is a culture that you support to arm everyone so they can defend themselves while they're waiting for the police? our civic society, our civil society depends on everybody being armed and having a more
powerful, longer range weapon than their neighbors? >> i believe that american citizens have the right and the responsibility to take they're fire arms, that they have bought for self-defense, to defend themselves and their family until the police arrived. yes, sir. >> you are glad to manufacture those. i yield back. >> yes, sir. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky, distinguished ranking member, mr. comer, he's recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. mrs. okafor, your certified farms instructor who specializes in training women. you stated that already. what would you say to people who want to restrict the purchase and use of guns like ar-15s? >> i would say for all this talk about manhood, et cetera, again, that shows that the 8
million new gun owners we had just the last couple of years, almost half of them are women. so, we're talking about women here, we are talking about women who are also ar-15 gun owners as well. because i've seen in my experience, as an instructor, and as a woman as well, it is far easier to hold and use a ar-15 without having to worry about the recoil that comes with having a smaller handheld firearm. so, it's been able to absorb a lot of that impact. it's been there for something that a lot of my female students are happy to have. >> in your opinion, wouldn't control policies to prevent the cell and possession of ar-15 rifles impact everyone equally? are there some groups who would be more impacted than others? >> as we found in history, over and over again, whether it's
legitimately because they are trying to put forth laws that are explicitly against, for example, african americans, you can look at history, from slave codes to black codes that restricted african americans from even having a firearm to, in just the last couple of decades even, rather the last century rather from the civil rights era, jim crow laws, we found that whether it's explicitly african americans or explicitly minority groups or explicitly those who are unable to afford a firearm, and the restrictions that come with it, it primarily impacts those communities that are the most vulnerable and defenseless for a number of reasons, and need some type of firearm or unable to because of the financial restrictions and training barriers that come with gun restrictions. >> thank you very much, i yield
the balance of my time to representative clyde. >> thank, you ranking member. we are here today because democrats on this committee are bound and determined to politicize the horrible tragic events that occurred in uvalde, texas. immediately following the shooting, democrats demanded information. on the cool manufacture marketing and sale of deadly weapons in mass shootings, and quote. since this requests on may 26th by democrats all of the companies which these letters were sent have been responsive to the chair's request. as i understand, producing over 3500 pages of documents. so, we're here today because democrats want to somehow blame gun manufacturers for violent crimes. democrats did not see fit to drag auto manufacturers before this committee to blame the christmas parade massacre citing car violence or suv occult violence for the murder of six people and the injury is 62 others in the violent criminal act, democrats have coined the term gun violence, and determine that guns, which are inanimate objects, and unable to commit any crime or
active violence should be banned. i take issue with that term, as i have never known a gun to be violent. i have known people to be violent, but never an inanimate objects like a firearm. i've owned thousands of firearms in my lifetime. i have never met, owned, or handled of violent gun. people are the origin of violence, and they use all sorts of tools to her pertain, to perpetuate their violence. we should be holding the criminals accountable. firearms are simply tools and can be used for good or evil by the person behind the tool. the democrats want to blame the existence of the second amendment, which the founding fathers enshrined in the constitution because they understood the first step towards tyranny is disarming the citizenry. they want to play in the second amendment for all the violence occurring in this country. let me be clear, gun manufacturers not cause violence, the second amendment is not to blame for violence in this country. criminals are the ones who engage in violence and commit crimes. i've been a federal farm --
arms licensing for three years. i've been -- weather manufacture, important, or dealer is a true constitutional business. without them, most citizens would not be able to exercise their second amendment rights. it's been so vital in achieving and maintaining our freedoms for now 246 years. i believe a good model for our nation's firearms industry would be, we enable individual participation in the preservation of liberty. as we, know that's with the second amendment does. it helps preserve our liberty because it allows individuals to defend themselves against unlawful aggression. whether it is defending against someone committing a crime, or against the government bent on tyranny and eliminating our liberty. since federal farms licensees or constitutional businesses, it makes it more imperative that the government use every tool at our disposal to protect these types of businesses so they can continue to serve law-abiding and free citizens. governments are instituted among men as our declaration of independence says, that to secure these rights --
>> the gentleman's time has expired. >> from the consent of the government. thank, you i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, recognized for five minutes. >> thank, you madam chairman. i also know thank all of our witnesses, especially the families who have come, who have been impacted negatively by gun violence. gun manufacturers would have us believe that they are helpless to stop mass shootings. they want us to forget the assault rifles that are designed to kill people quickly and efficiently. with the right parts included and high capacity magazines, these weapons can shoot hundreds of rounds in a matter of seconds. one of the gun makers here with us today, famously came up with the very idea of banning high-capacity magazines more
than 20 years ago. in the lead up to the 1994 saw weapons ban, william roger, a founder of stern, router told him in an interview that, and i quote, no honest man needs more than ten rounds in any gun. mr. ruger, lobbied every member of congress to put in place, and i quote again, a simple complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines. after he retired, the company took a turn. mr. ruger began to lobby against restrictions on large capacity magazines. now, sells them for profit. mr. killoy, does your company currently make guns that except
magazines for more than ten rounds? >> yes, congressman, we do. >> mister daniel, same question to you. >> -- yes, sir. >> mr. daniel? >> yes. >> thank you. mass shooters have used legally purchased high capacity magazines in some of the worst killings this country or any country has seen, the shooter in the las vegas massacre was able to fire 100 rounds in ten seconds because he used a high capacity magazine. and the united states carries
into combat. ten states from the district of columbia have banned high capacity magazines, but they're not illegal everywhere. and these dangerous accessories have spread to all areas of the country. miss sampson, why is banning high-capacity magazines at the federal level necessary? >> thank you for the question. it's important to buy -- at the federal level because we are a country that's connected. states don't exist in an island, we hear people for example in the city of chicago as an example as to why laws don't work. but chicago, exist within illinois, which exists within the united states. it's an example of where guns have come from the state of indiana for example. even if you have a high capacity magazine in one state, that doesn't mean that individuals in that state
wanted to harm can go to another state and get around it. we need federal solutions. we are a nation of states that are united. >> so, there is no way to really get at the issue and deal with the problem effectively unless we have a national man, and unless there is unity across the country. that these weapons of mass destruction really are not to be available to regular every ordinary people to do what with. nothing. nothing but kill. i mean it's amazing that an individual can walk around with a weapon that you couldn't fire off 30 rounds in 30 seconds,
100 rounds before you even know what's happening. so, let me thank all of our witnesses for their answers. the solution is really simple, we must ban these weapons of war and get them off our streets. thank you madam chairman, i yield. back >> gentlemen yield back, gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grossman is recognized for five. minutes >> -- the topic always irritates me. first of all, i'm old enough to remember when i was a child, all they talked about was pistols. it was all about handguns, don't worry about long guns, whatever 90% of the murders in the country or whatever are committed by handguns. and we don't care about long ends, enough long guns -- we only care about long guns. which shows what i think what we're trying to get that. people do not want american citizens to have guns, they
want them restricted to the type of citizens who obey the law i'm a government. which i find offensive. i also find it offensive that one more time we're talking about the pathology of this country, we don't address the structure of the family. i think like so many other things, there is areas in society where you have almost no murders, and then areas where you have a lot of murders, that corresponds with areas in which we have weak families and strong families. one more time of attending the air i get the same thing, education committee, we just ignore this big elephant in the room, the structure of the family. i'd like to yield the remainder of my time to mr. cline. >> thank you. my colleague from wisconsin. áj■mister daniel, i want to ask you a couple questions here and reiterate something that's been mentioned already.
president biden made the claim that gun manufacturers are quote, the only industry in america that is exempt from being sued by the public. the only one. madam chair, i'd like to ask anonymous consent to submit this article published by ap news on february 9th, 2022, it says despite biden's plane gunmakers can indeed be sued. >> without objection. >> thank you. isn't it true that your company still remains liable under the law for any potential design or manufacturing the sikh that lets the injury or damage or breach of con direct, warrant of a product, or facilitate and prohibited to a person, is this -- lawful congress an arms act enacted in 2005, can you still be sued by the public for any of these kind of breaches? >> yes sir, we can. >> so, thank you. i want everyone to know that the firearms industry is not exempt from being sued by the
public for a myriad of things. mister daniel, does daniel defense cell ar-15 russ -- to police departments, sheriffs offices, and to other law enforcement agencies? >> yes, sir. about 30 agencies a month. >> 30 agencies a month. that's pretty impressive. given the idea of how many other companies firearms on the hands of law enforcement, protecting defending the piece of that our citizens can live in freedom? >> no, sir i do not have that on the top of my head. >> i would imagine that if 30 agencies a month, that's probably a lot, don't you think? >> yes sir. >> so, why do law enforcement agency choose to use daniel defense firearms? >> sir, we build, were very dedicated to building the best firearms in the world. and the product that we build is dependable, we take good care of our customers and treat
them the way that we want to be treated. we think these are the reasons why people choose our products. >> thank you. as someone who has obviously had tremendous experience of the firearm industries, sees the highs and lows of sales. would you agree in the firearm industry is very sensitive to government regulation or the fear of increased government restriction on constitutional rights? >> yes sir. >> so, tell me what happens the sales one additional restrictions or a potential on the horizon, do they go up or down, do they stay the same? >> our sales fluctuate based off of the politics and the conversations about firearms bans. >> okay, does that also happen when crime and uncertainty is on the rise, do sales increase? >> yes, that's correct. >> okay, and the democrats have carried the mantle and promoted the idea of defunding the police, democrat cities are
around the city started to cut their budgets, cut the budgets of their police departments to fall in line with the defunding of the police narrative. people have feared for their facing instill firearms dealer sought increase in sales, would you agree? >> yes, sir. unprecedented in the past two years. -- we never than. before >> thank you, i would submit that people are voicing their opinions with their pocketbooks. i think that's a very, very strong opinion across the nation. thank you, i yield back. >> gentlemen yields back. gentleman from massachusetts miss pressley is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairwoman maloney, for today's hearing. while the gun industry race and hundreds of millions of dollars, choosing profit over people, selling weapons of war to anyone who wants them, impact the communities across the country who are forced to yield the consequences of their
grief. bloodshed, pain, the trauma of a loved one being seriously injured or killed two to gun violence. communities disproportionate impact is black, brown, the lgbtq community, from buffalo to orlando, to el paso and atlanta. this of course is devastating and unexpected result one companies employ marketing tactics that's brad white supremacy and emboldened far-right extremist groups, for example shortly after the 2017 white supremacist march and attack in charlottesville, virginia, the national shooting -- promoted an advertisement encouraging people to buy assault weapons to use against unnamed protesters, unarmed protesters. mr. -- you referenced this advertisement in your remarks. can you explain why advertisements like these are
dangerous? >> thank you for the question. to clarify, that's not a national splitting -- ad. that is an advertisement from an ar-15 company that was displayed at a national foundation show in 2018. that is an add, in my opinion, that is encouraging and celebrating the idea that civil unrest and attacking protesters is a potential business model of profit for firearms companies. i believe that to be a very distressing and irresponsible path of advertising. >> thank you, although the slide has moved, can we bring it back for a moment. it's hard to see but they also named boston a city that i represent, right in the upper left hand corner there, recently my communities experienced firsthand the far-right white supremacist organization patriot fund,
inaction they've held multiple demonstrations of fear in boston to spread the racist bigotry and attack folks on the street. let me be clear, as a congressman for the massachusetts seven, i'll do everything in my power to keep my constituency and stand up against supremacy, whenever, and wherever it shows up. it should also be a baseline commitment of the end s f half, the organization promoted this malicious advertisement. mister daniel, as a bore member of an s f f, can you use your -- from allowing ads like this one naming boston and promoting assault weapons, yes or no? mr.? daniel >> madam, this wasn't as -- bad -- >> legal position as a board member? in any way to stop the sort of
advertisements? yes or no then? >> i don't understand the question. >> okay, that's okay. mr. -- simplest interview since you are also on the border. will you commit to ending the practice -- yes or no? >> respectfully, the nsf does not advertise firearms for any of its member companies, they host a trade show annually in january, that's where i believe that that was seen, by a company who may have been displaying there. >> i reclaim my time, i think the point still remains, as long as gun manufacturers have adds to sell their weapons of war using marketing tactics, black and brown communities will continue to be targeted. and that has got to change. in the face of white supremacy from our neighbors and i are undeterred of healing in the true justice and we will not let gunmakers incite violence
against us. with impunity. and i yield back. >> the lady yields. back mr. flood, you member committee from new mexico, welcome. you're now recognized for five minutes. we >> thank you madam chair. thank you all for testifying today. i want to turn the tension to exactly why we have seen a rise in gun sales in america. according to statistics, specifically those related to lawful purchases of handguns and other types of guns through background checks, nationally, 75% is the increase we've seen from 2019 to 2020. in nebraska, 70% increase in background checks related to gun purchases just in my home state. national researchers also shown roughly 70% of gun owners are citing personal protection as a major reason for purchasing a
firearm. unfortunately, over the last year's violent crime across america has dramatically and grazed. that crime is affected my district. in lincoln, nebraska, for example violent crimes is increasing and citizens are concerned. i appreciate your prior testimony today were you called yourself an accidental activist. i know you train governors on proper etiquette. i'm really interested in knowing from those that you work with, particularly women, what reasons do they cite for purchasing a gun, and what does having ownership of a gun do for them personally, and is it related to what we've seen as an increase in violent crime? the number one reason they buy a firearm is for self-defense, in my time, my personal time
with my female students, most of them are like me, survivors of crime, they are survivors of domestic violence, of sexual assault, et cetera. so, they essentially come to me because they want to make sure they are never a victim again. that is why they want to be able to learn how to use a firearm and use it safely. >> someone have you believe that banning ar-15s is gonna make america safer place. talk about what your students are saying about using an ar-15 and what is their opinion as to whether or not, if you can testify to this, a ban would do? >> well, it really comes down practically of wooden ar-15 does, particularly a rifle for a woman especially or those who have any type of physical disability, they give you the upper hand in that situation. the fact that most people
probably a criminal, might have a handgun, but if you're working with an assailant that has multiple assailants in that situation, and ar-15 is necessary, obviously, as a way to have the upper hand in that situation. particularly for a female. like i said before my testimony go ar-15s, you're able to mitigate the recoil much better than you would with a handgun. that's why a lot of people prefer to have that upper hand by having an ar-15. >> was it your prior testimony today that of all weapons that your female students have sampled, that the ar-15 was routinely one of their most, you know, favorite? >> yes, that is when i routinely get. other women tend to already have this preconceived idea of what an ar-15 is, when an ar is. because a lot of advertising and rhetoric saying that, you
know, they shouldn't have a firearm of that capacity, they think would be something that they wouldn't enjoy until they actually shoot one. they realize it's actually a benefit to them. it is easier for them to hold and to actually enjoy shooting, so they can train and defend themselves if they ever have to use that in an unfortunate circumstance. >> we don't have much time left, could you briefly speak to the peace of mind that owning a weapon like this would give to one of those female students that you have instructed with firearms? >> yeah, the peace of mind is i believe similar to anybody, but again, particularly in america, i know there's a lot of talk, there's been a lot of talk about weapons of war, et cetera and the difference, as if the constitution is not explicit and that we have a right to keep and bear arms. that includes all arms. yes, even, quote unquote, weapons of war. at the end of the day, it's to make sure that we have the
ability to defend against an oppressive, tyrannical government. there is no restriction, particularly with the second amendment that says there's a distinction between a civilian and someone in the military. so, it comes down to an individual's right to defend themselves and figure out what is best for them to defend themselves in that situation. that is it. >> thank you for your testimony. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, the gentleman from maryland, recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. before i proceed to my line of questioning, i just wanted to clarify, miss samson, can you, again, just for the record, clarify whether gun manufacturers enjoy legal immunity? >> thank you. gun manufacturers do not necessarily enjoy complete immunity. what they do have is an unnecessary level of protection from placa, it makes it much more difficult for victims of
their misconduct to hold him accountable in court. what that means, for most other industries, if an individual is harmed by their misconduct, they can file a claim and in a court of law, they can decide whether or not that claim has merit. with placa, what's gun manufacturers are able to do, they can get in front of the courthouse doors and say, you have to get over a hurdle before you can even get to the merits. that's not asking for anything that would be especially punishing to gun manufacturers, all we're asking is that gun manufacturers be held to the same standards as everyone else, that's especially important because they don't even face consumer oversight. >> they receive special treatment when it comes to the way manufacturers generally have to face legal liability for their products. thank you for that. let me get to why i think they might have some special treatment here. we know that it's been very hard to get legislation passed in congress that would address
gun violence. we finally, last month, we're able to achieve some bipartisan legislation to help stem the tide of gun violence in our country. the reason it's been so difficult is because for decades there has been this powerful grasp of special interest, which is dining progress when even the most convincing sense gun reforms. i'm gonna put a -- gun rights group spent a staggering 100 and $90 million, nearly $200 million on the lobbying between 1998 and 2022. according to public records, the nra itself spent 5.3 million on lobbying from 2021 to 2022 while the national shooting sports foundation, an organization representing gunmakers, distributors, and retailers, and by the way, upon whose board of governors, mister daniel, he sits. they spent -- just in the first three months
of 2022. we also know that in 2015 and 2016, roger gave the nra over $12 million in cash payments, which is a staggering sum. and, these sums of money have their effect. they have a very pernicious effect on their democracy. mr. busse, you're a gun owner, and a former firearms executive, do you agree that the views of the nra, as an organization, where they put their lobbying dollars, not necessarily every rank and file member of an array, they're responsible gun owners among that group, the nra as an organization, their views do not represent the views of the majority of americans, including a majority of responsible gun owners like yourself? would you agree that? >> yes, sir, i certainly agree that. >> thank you. >> 60% of gun owners actually support raising the age for americans to purchase ar-15s from 18 to 21. the nra clearly doesn't speak
for the majority of americans. they don't even speak for a majority of ordinary gun owners. ever since the supreme court's devastating decision in citizens united, groups like the nra have been ever more empowered to drown out the voices in the votes of everyday americans by funneling dark money into our political process. in 2016 alone the nra spent upwards of $54 million on independent expenditures to -- nearly double the amount it spent during the 2014 midterm elections and more than doubled expenditures during the 20 2012 election cycle. much of this was rooted through the nra's institute for legislative action. the organizations lobbying -- which is not subject to donor disclosure laws. these funds were used to support the election of pro gun politicians and systematically block legislative action to
crack down on gun trafficking and purchasing or strengthening background checks and then acting red flag laws, now, fortunately, these were an activist part of the bipartisan safer communities act last month. even now, the grip of the gun lobbying the dark money that funds its efforts continues to threaten the progress of further efforts to address america's gun violence epidemic. if we are able to comprehensively address this crisis, it will depend on getting dark money out of our political system and make democracy responsive to every day americans. those are the steps we must take to address these insidious factors of big money, special interests, and these particular industries, like the gun lobbying. with that, i yield back. >> madam chair -- madam chair, a question. consent to waive on representative buddy carter from georgia for today's hearing. >> without objection. now, the gentleman from ohio,
mr. gibbs is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i'm really amazed how the other side of the aisle keeps going after the gun manufacturers and guns, like the guns have brains. it just amazes me. i look at what happens in chicago over the weekend, around our cities where we have murderers, and shootings, and miss okafor would you confirm or that the people committing these crimes and in chicago and elsewhere, they're criminals, illegal grounds for gun under ship. is that why some of the people you train want to get arms to defend themselves because they're fearful of those type of people? shootings in chicago and elsewhere? >> the women that i train tend to be fearful of anybody regardless of where they live where they are going to do a criminal act towards them. >> they're fearful, they're committing crimes, ownership illegally of firearms, that's
typical of, i broad russia, that's typical, right? >> yeah, whether it's illegal or legally, the fact of the matter is that they're doing something illegal. >> let's prosecute these people and lock them up. you know, unfortunately for our colleague from new york, was on the firearm when he was assaulted last friday, but he was assaulted with a deadly weapon. one of the state of new york to? they released that person. unfortunately, the federal government arrested that person, they released that person. what kind of message does that send? there is ways to view violence, not just with guns. why we take so much time talking about guns when we have an element out here that were not addressing, the criminal activity, and prosecuting those people. it just sends the wrong message and you go after law-abiding citizens that want to defend themselves with the second amendment, it's incredible to me that we're not focused on
that, madam chair. what's really going on in this country, you know, when you send a message to criminals out there that, hey, don't worry, we'll let you go, you won't get prosecuted, that sends the wrong message. we really need to deal with that and not attack our second amendment rights. i yield the rest of my time to representative clyde. >> thank you, thank you very much to my colleague. mr. busse, in your statement you said that guns pretty much are at the center of radicalized domestic terrorists. is that right? >> i made a statement similar to that, yes, sir. >> okay, you also said, in my last month is an industry executive, i snap photos like this, showed the photo, it's a tactical advertisement of the entrance of the stock that show weirdly combine revolutionary soldiers and ar-15 in the promise of daily gunfights as a proposition. on january 6th, 2021, less than a year after took these photos, these exact components
coalesced into a violent mob just a few hundred yards from here. are there any ar-15s taken into the capital by rioters on january the 6th? >> yes, i believe there is documentation of ar-15s in the mob, not sure where they were location wise. >> in the capital? >> not to my knowledge i'm. >> not in the capital? >> not to my knowledge. >> were any guns taken into the capital, to your knowledge? >> i do not know the answer to the. >> i think the answer to that would be no, there were not. i don't really understand how you say these exact components when you talk about firearms, coalesced into a violent mob just a few hundred yards from here. i can't quite understand how you get there in talking about firearms and january 6th where there were no firearms whatsoever in the capital, taken into the capital by rioters. now, for uber, i would like to
ask a question to our good friend mr. killoy, ceo of ruger, thank you for being here today. >> -- >> i understand that your west point graduate and a veteran of the u.s. army. >> yes, sir, that's correct, i graduated in 1981, and i spent five years on active duty in the army reserve. >> wow, thank you for your service to our nation, that is quite an impressive record. can you tell me, does ruger sell firearms to law enforcement agencies? >> yes, congressman, we sell to quite a few law enforcement agencies directly, as well as to our network of law enforcement distributors. firearms are particular popular as off-duty or backup guns for many law enforcement sworn officers. >> thank you. i wanted to thank you and your company for being a leader in the gun manufacturing industry, i also wanted to thank you for being a constitutional business and for the work that ruger
does to make quality firearms affordable to all economies of citizens so they can protect themselves, especially during this time of increase in crime across our nation. so, thank you to ruger and its employees. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois, miss kelly, is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair, and the witnesses, since 1976 the gun industry has been exempt from oversight by the consumer product safety commission. just by over 45,000 americans dying from gun related injuries in 2020 and over 25,000 so far this year. a teddy bear has more safety oversight than guns do. on the consumer product safety app make them safe? >> i'm not an expert on the customer law, congresswoman. >> but do you think they should
be included, like teddy bears and crabs, and almost everything else you could name and guns are exempt? >> i believe that all freedoms, especially the freedom to own guns, the freedom to manufacture and salons must be balanced with a commiserate around of regulation and it's up to legislatures like you and the other folks on this committee to decide that. >> while, i have a bill that would do just that. just this, the firearm safety act would remove the gun industry's exemption under the consumer product safety act. having strong safety standards on firearms is critical, there is no good reason for firearms to be the only consumer product not under the supervision of the ccp as sea. i want to shift their focus to gun trafficking. the city of chicago is often highlighted as an example of why stroke on laws don't work. but what people fail to realize,
time and time again, is that over 60% of crime guns comes from out of state. this happens in other cities as well. new york city's mayor, eric adams, testified before this committee that the the nypd is taken over 3000 illegal guns off the street in 2022 alone. many which were trafficked through the so-called iron pipeline. gun manufacturers are often contacted by the atf, to aid in the tracing investigations following the path of a gun from the manufacture to -- mr. caloy, does rug or take any steps -- shipments of firearms to dealers who sell a disproportionate amount of crime guns? >> congresswoman, in the case of roger, we distribute our firearms in a two-step distribution of, we sell to 15
fairly large wholesalers. who in turn, they're all federal licensed firearm licensees. they then sell to the individual retails who also are licensees. we don't have visibilities to those individual dealers, we debt spell to much smaller than our 15 wholesalers. >> thank. you >> mister daniel does daniel defense take any steps to identify problematic patterns of dealers to stop shipments of firearms to dealers who sell a disproportionate number of crime guns? >> congresswoman, we are a federal licensed, federally licensed by the two have manufacture firearms. we sell our products through federally licensed dealers. we are very good, to make sure that our firearms are transported legally through legal dealers. if there is a pipeline of guns
coming in from your district, the people who bring those in illegally, that's a crime in those people should be prosecuted. >> i don't disagree. mr. simpson, in your view to these companies do more to stop illegal gun trafficking, if so what could they do? >> yes, they could for starters manufacturers could be must more vigilant around the distributors and dealers that they sell to. so, even if they don't necessarily go directly to a dealer, if they go to a distributor and they realize that that distributor is working with dealers for selling crime guns, over and over again, patrick trigger an investigation and change the business practices. another thing that manufacturers could do, is change the way that they designed their guns. you mentioned consumer product safety, that's a large part of what manufacturers have control over.
that dealers and distributors do not have control over. they could do things like chamber load indicators, or some of the procedures that would make it harder for someone to use a weapon that doesn't belong to that. that would also go a long way to stopping gun crime. >> thank. you and lastly, one last question for mr. caloy, and mr. daniels, we for today's support for abolishing the atf. do you support abolishing the atf? >> speaking on behalf of ruger, we were closely with our regulators, we do not support them. >> thank you. mister daniel? >> i agree with mr. caloy, we are licensed dealers, licensed manufactures who south the regulated by the atf, and we are not in support at this time of eliminating the atf. >> the ladies time has expired.
>> thank you so much, thank you to the. witnesses >> mr. sessions you are now recognized. >> madam chairwoman, i appreciate you having this hearing today. i want to thank all five or six of our witnesses that are here today, to offer testimony to allow us to get closer to these questions. questions about not just the profits of gun manufacturers but the practices and the way i see it is, i'm delighted that each one of our manufacturers have taken part in today's hearing. because in my opinion, they provide proper elements, things that i grew up with as a young man, hunting, fishing, things that i have chosen to have as a sport. and i am delighted that there in the united states of america, not just smith and wesson, which i carry. but also ruger, is a great product. mr. boozy, you will presented
yourself as i try to be and i believe there is truth it is you're looking for a opportunities for people to use a gun, as you had stated but to be consistent with values of not just the law but also of common sense. i want to thank you for pointing that out. when i want to ask you is if senior analysis of this as an expert before us today, why are so many people buying guns? >> i think there is a myriad of reasons, sir, i think the spike in firearms ownership, if that's what you're referring to in the last couple of years. has been driven by an uptake and fear, worried society about conspiracy theories, that's driving much of the firearm sales, and my particular place of expertise, or concern is the
degree to which firearm companies and political entities that fire companies are entwined with our constructing that conspiracy theory and driving it through political messaging. >> okay, so there's no reality basis for people seeing or hearing, seeing in their neighborhood children who are killed by other people who are robbed, raped, murdered by criminals? >> no sir, i do not believe that. i think they're certainly justifiable reasons to purchase a handgun, a gun and defend yourself. i believe -- >> we're talking about the spike? >> i was talking about much of the spike, yes, and i believe we're talking about policy making in the greater area. there's a balance between responsible gun and warship and what becomes irresponsible. i think some of the actions encouraging the things that have driven gun sales have
crossed over that line in the fats few years. >> all right, that's a great place to start. what i would say to you, i believe that the vast number of people who carry, including myself, do so because we believe that we have a god given right to protect yourself, which one of the reasons why i became a member of the national riper association. i try and conduct myself with training, i try and conduct myself with proper licensing, as i've held that concealed permit license for a number of years, and have it be responsible about that. so, do you think we're talking about criminals or well-balanced people that are improperly perhaps as you suggested, maybe not using these weapons properly? >> i think it's a combination. i think you bring up a very good point about your concealed carry license. i think, i salute you for
adhering to the regulation for that concealed carry license. i regret the fact that that's no longer necessary for you to obtain. >> well, perhaps, i think it's and everybody's best interest to make sure that they are responsibly, you can i both agree here, but i will tell you that i have been driven and hundreds of my friends including mostly women, who have been driven to perhaps even here as -- outrage that they would recognize that they don't want to be victims in their own home. their ability to protect themselves important. mrs. okafor, can you please discuss with me why you are members purchase firearms? >> speak lee directly to women, women by firearms because of
self-defense. that's an overwhelming study that that's the reason why most women particularly women in the last couple of years by firearms. it's for self-defense. and talking even more so in regards to the constitutional carry, which is what you're talking about, criminal carry in texas, women a fine that actually even better of a policy because now they know that if they decide to get a permit, they want to go through the training involved in that, that they can. but actually keeps them from having to do so when time permits, when you can't wait the 60 to 90 days to get a permit from the state to tell you you're able to carry -- >> gentlemen time has expired. >> i appreciate the gentleman -- i would say this to -- >> the gentleman's time has expired! >> i want to thank you to having what's seen as a balanced opportunity, i yield back my time. >> thank you, i now ask
when they claim to be about states rights, they don't live up to that when it comes to guns. they oppose any kind of regulation at the state level or at the local level. and when they say we counted pose any kind of restrictions on background checks, work right requiring individuals to lock up their guidance, trigger locks, then they say we can't do anything to hold gun
manufacturers accountable. pretty much giving us no way to reduce guns in this country except by their idea that everybody should have a guide, and that's how you reduce gun violence in this country. we have done it before. when it came to automobiles, when it came to cars, when all of a sudden the car accidents stored in congress and states enacted lifesaving safety measures requiring seat -- at the lock brakes, in vehicles and what did you see? car accident that's decreased radically, while gun deaths soared. these gun makers before us today, republicans have done worse than nothing in response. they actually help and fuel to the fire by advertising guns, ar-15s, another weapons to white supremacists and children. and this is what we're dealing with. mr. daniels, you've told my
colleagues earlier today that you oppose federal regulations on conceived, seek gun violence as an issue to be solved locally. does that mean you support state laws like those in california the bad marketing guns to children, and allow residents to sue those who violate state safety standards, produce, it's a weapons of war? >> so -- taking responsibility of all the people who are involved. >> that's a no. you basically believe that gun should be marketed towards children? >> we market our guns to adults, law-abiding adults for lawful purposes. >> mister daniel, i'm gonna take back my time. mr. busse, from your experience if the gun industry thinks --
why have they lobbied to exempt themselves from liability and common sense gun safety regulations and why have they succeeded? what, at what's cost when it comes to death and violence? >> thank you for the question, congressman. i am greatly distressed at the degree to which the firearms industry has funded a powerful political machine that has fought common sense federal gun regulation at every turn, it has broadly supported by the american public. these things include universal background checks, they include raising the minimum age on the purchase of long guns to 21 and many other things. the reason that it has been fought as because cranking up the political pressure in this country is a profitable business model for the nra and other groups that use this topic as a way to divide our
society. >> thank you. gun violence has been normalized in our country at the expense of children and families. i've had constituents killed, one was killed in las vegas in the mass shooting. you know, this is something that we have to fight against. this isn't normal, it's not okay. right? we have to be in fear of our lives for friends and families to go to church, school, a parade. this is something that is not reasonable. we must -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> take steps to lessen gun violence. i yield back. >> okay, the gentlelady from new york, miss cortez is recognized. >> thank, you madam chair. i would like us to just dive right into it. i have a photo that i would like to pull up for the committee and our witnesses to be able to see. can we get that pulled up?
>> -- >> it's on, okay, perfect. mister daniel, you are ceo of a firearm manufacturer daniel defense. this photograph is from an advertisement featured for your company. do you know, i would like to draw your attention to that red tattoo featured in your company's advertisement. do you know with that tattooists? mister daniel? >> congresswoman, i'm not sure -- is this our ad or someone else is that? >> this is your ad, this is an advertisement for your company, daniel defense. but >> our brand name is not in the photo. >> no worries, no worries. this is featured prominently near advertisement, that had to. you've indicated you don't know what it is. miss thompson, as an expert in this area, can you briefly tell us what's that tattoo is?
>> that's a fall not, it's a symbol that has been increasingly embraced by white supremacists. >> mister daniel, you may or may not know, but your company's advertisement prominently displays iconography associated with white supremacist movements. you can also find it in this other photo that i will be pulling up right now. right there from january 6th, you can see the full not right there on this gentleman's chest. mister daniel, yes or no, are you aware that your advertising department uses imagery affiliated with white supremacist movements and its marketing materials? >> no, ma'am. >> okay, reclaiming my time, thank you. i apologize, i have to move a bit quickly to fit these questions in. mr. busse, you -- reclaiming my time, mr. busse, you are a former firearms executive. do you think that the use of
this kind of imagery is welcomed and encouraged in marketing for the firearms industry, as a former executive yourself? >> i don't think it's welcome and encouraged, i think it's looked away from. i think that there is an aura and an approach in the industry were any single gun customers good, no matter how detestable their views or their actions maybe. i saw dozens of examples through my career of the acceptance or looking away from racist things. i think it's different than seeking it out, but i don't think it's properly controlled or addressed. >> so, in your experience, you believe that a lot of gun manufacturers turn a blind eye to these kinds of instances? >> yes. congresswoman, that is correct. i think they turn a blind eye because the industry has, within its dna now, the belief that any single new gun owners good, no matter what they do or how they mark it. that's why you heard earlier the representatives from ruger
and daniel defense, both of them have said they would refuse to condemn. >> thank you mister busse, the toxic marketing does do enormous harm. we see roads with white supremacists using these weapons targeting and killing black americans shopping for groceries and buffalo, attending church in charleston, targeting jewish communities in the tree of life. mister daniel, once again, as the ceo of daniel defense, yes or no, do you believe that members of identified extremist hate groups such as the proud boys their oath keepers should be able to purchase the ar-15 style rifles that your company sells? >> congresswoman, were regulated by the atf, through laws which you pass, we are very good at only -- >> thank you, i apologize, i just have a limited amount of time. thank you. turning it to you, mister killoy, you're a board member,
a ceo of sturm, ruger & company, inc., and a member of the national shooting sports foundation. mister daniel you're also a member of the nsf. the armory is a firearms company that is a member of the nsf. i'd like to pull up another photo, as a member of the foundation that you're in, right here, palmetto state armory has used imagery clearly designed to appeal to the fbi identified far-right domestic terrorist threat, boogaloo boys. with products such as this ak-47 style pistol, designed in the same floral pattern as often used by these group members to identify one another. mr. caloy, as a board member of the analysis of, do you condemn marketing firearms to identified extremist groups such as the proud boys or oath keepers or boogaloo boys, yes or no, do you condemn your
industry explicitly marketing materials to domestic terror threats? >> congresswoman, the national shooting sports foundation does not control individual member -- >> this is a member of your foundation, mr. killoy. >> i take exception to the fact that, you know, i can assure you there is, we do not tolerate racism or white supremacy. >> do you condemn marketing these materials, do you condemn marketing these materials to proud boys, oath keepers, or boogaloo boys? that's all, it's a yes or no. >> you can answer the question. >> i had never seen that before, i didn't realize that's what it is tied to. i'm not an expert in that field. >> we don't have an answer here. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. gentleman from california, mr. desaulnier, recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you for your leadership on this. starting with miss samson, and
then mr. busse, if you could comment on the extraordinary cost to americans for gun violence in this country. first, i want to refer to a reporter from last year that the chair asked for. it is been covered, including in an article of the new york times. it estimated that cost of gun violence is over a billion dollars, at the very least, just in terms of medical costs to federal taxpayers. 60% of these medical costs are paid for through medicare, medicaid. then, on another just recent, i've done research, the numbers are staggering to a broader study. titled the economic cost of gun violence, 555, 557 billion annually or comparable to 2.6% of the u.s. gross domestic product.
so, compare those numbers, for me, based on the three billion dollars worth of profits, i take it is after tax profit as reported by trace for gun manufacturers. to me, this is a huge subsidy in addition to the horrible pain and suffering, just from financial standpoint. first, miss sampson, from the report, but also other reports, could you add your comments to the cost of gun violence to american taxpayers? >> thank, you congressman. i think as you called, it is a sort of subsidy because at the same time that american taxpayers are bearing not just obviously the emotional cost in terms of trauma and death, but also financial costs of gun violence, the gun violence epidemic. the gun industry is continuing to make profits, and then they use the violence that they impart facilitate to market people to tell them that they need to have even more weapons.
so, as we hear a lot of talk about self-defense, for example, well, a lot of people want to defend themselves because they're afraid of being shot by people who shouldn't have weapons. rather than making sure that we make the industry accountable for allowing people to have weapons that they shouldn't have, they just continue to fuel that market. so, they're able to evade responsibility, they're able to evade transparency. and they're able to evade oversight, all the while putting the cost of that on american taxpayers and on americans themselves who die as a result of that misconduct in irresponsibility. >> thanks, miss sampson. mr. busse? >> i think that most responsible gun owners want to be a part of a solution and don't want to be a part of the problem. and we need to rebalance the scales.
so, to the degree to which irresponsible activities or insufficient regulation is leading towards costs and cost of gun violence, i believe, through my own experience, responsible gun owners want to play a part in being a solution to that. >> mr. busse, i want to talk to a little bit about having -- for a long time, very active prevention program from a public health standpoint. when we look at, me just comparing states with the evidence based research, gun violence prevention and the collective effect they have. so, in california, laws, some of which that i have authored on state level, 25% less likely to be a victim of gun violence, if you're a young person, your 35% less likely to be involved
in a school shooting. so, the gist of, that to me, based research, particularly in california at the university of california, davis and their violence prevention program, not just, in this instance, these policies work and you're less likely to be harmed by guns if we have these initiatives. he's done a wonderful job, i think, of comparing the internationally. could you speak to that? anything you'd like to add in the time i have left, miss simpson? >> thank, you congressman. i think that you're correct. i would like to take issue with some of the statements i've heard here from other representatives today. telling us that gun laws don't work, or that they won't be applied to anybody but criminals. i would like to take your example and apply it to two recent shootings, the uvalde shooting in the buffalo shooting. and both of those cases, the shooters waited until they were 18 to purchase the guns, they
didn't purchase them when they're 16 and a half, they did purchase them when they were 17 and three quarters, they waited until they were 18. why is that? because the law said they couldn't purchase them until they were 18, so, to your point in california, and to those cases the fact is is that the laws impact the way people purchase and use guns. we need to, as a responsible society, you as a governing body, you need to take that into account. >> the gentleman's time has expired. thank you, the young lady from california, jackie speier, organized and recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i find this hearing to be both edifying and very painful. mr. killoy, in your testimony, you made the assertion that modern sporting rifles are not inherently more dangerous than other popular firearms.
is that true? is that what you said? i >> think that's paraphrasing, but yes, congresswoman. >> i don't know if you took the time to listen to the hearing we had on uvalde and the families that appeared and the pediatrician who went to school at robb elementary and is very committed to the community. he went into that morgue, not the more, he went into that emergency room, and one of the children was decapitated. the other child's body wasn't shreds, it could not be identified, how can you say that that is a sporting rifle? >> congresswoman, respectfully, obviously, the events in uvalde were tragic on so many levels. to blame the fire arm, it is a semi automatic fire arm, they've been around since 1885 when they were first invented.
many of them larger caliber's than the 2 to 3 caliber that's used in modern sporting rifles typically. again, it's an inanimate object used by a wicked, evil. >> it is a weapon of war, mr. killoy, no matter how you want to sugarcoat it, it decapitate's people, it shreds their bodies. it is not a gun you use as, you know, a sporting rifle to shoot a deer. let me move on to the protection of law, commerce, an arms act. has really had the effect of robbing the american people the mechanism to ensure that gun industry is protected american consumers. we passed lies all the time to protect consumers that manufacturers find find distasteful or costly. whether it's airbags or seat belts. if a product is unsafe, or could easily be made safer we
take action. now ms. sampson, how many americans die an accidental fire accidents every year? >> there's about nine per day. i'm not sure what that adds up to near. you can do the math. >> nine per day of deaths that could be avoided with any kind of safety mechanism applied. how many of those deaths are children? >> i'm not sure. i think it's nine children per day, i'm sorry about that. >> nine children per day? that are tragically killed because they were playing with a firearm that was load, correct? >> yes. >> the sec filing for ruger's says that fire -- drew my deeply personal views and quote, many pistol shooters
did not like magazines that have a disconnect feature. in fact even when you make handcuffs with magazine dick disconnects that are easy to circumvent. there are multiple guides of how to remove the magazine and disconnect. mr. busse, what do you make of the argument that a consumer's personal views about how handgun feels should trump the risks that a child might accidentally shooters all? >> well, these are the questions that legislative body such as this, need to resolute for the good of society. here's a use for a handgun, obviously, and there's a need for things to be safe, as you noted we've wrestled with these things like cars, cigarettes, and anything else through the history of our country. >> i'm gonna show you this pink ar rifle, obviously being promoted for girls, i guess to
use. there appears to be a systematic effort underway by many manufacturers to promote having children get engaged in wanting to have guns. is that your newest market? any of you can answer that? do you see that as a market that is untapped? >> congresswoman, what's appropriate on the topic of firearms and children's properly training in educating children at an age appropriate level to handle firearms safely, to understand that used improper there a danger to themselves and others. to leave it alone and not a lot let the curiosity get the best of them. that's one of the reasons that ruger has supplied 25 million locks in the last few decades to keep our firearms out of
unauthorized hands such as children. >> thank you, my time is expired. [inaudible] >> the gentlelady from mitch again mrs. lawrence -- >> thank you madam chair. my colleague on the other side use the term that i hear frequently when we start talking about violence in america. he said my god given right. i was raised in the church, i attend church, and i read my bible personally. i would welcome any person to find the scripture where god says you shall own a gun. i will welcome anyone to show me where god declared that owning a gun is your right. i do pray for my colleagues. to own a gun in america is a
constitutional right. but just like any other situation that arises in america, when we get to the point of it being a pandemic, and epidemic, where the death of children in america, the number one cause is a gun. my goodness, aren't we intelligent enough in america to embrace this challenge. if i hear another hypocrite stand up and say my thoughts and prayers, while parents are grieving and standing and burying children. we care and have this debate about having abortion, oh i care about the children, but you embrace promote and make money off of guns that are killing our children. can you at least have a conversation about your right to own a gun and gun violence in america? mr. busse, plan manufacturers can they buy advertisements on
social media platforms like twitter or facebook, yes or no? >> i believe there are varying rules from those social media platforms. gun companies do advertise aggressively through social media platforms through the normal posting accounts. >> the answer is no, they're not supposed to get your correct. the gun manufacturers use social media to sell their product. and so even though these companies are not allowed to advertise directly on the platform, they have social media accounts that they can use to promote their products. the now infamous daniel defense ad, depicting a child holding a semi automatic weapon was posted on twitter, the company has since deleted the picture afternoon uproar after the uvalde massacre, the picture i post here. they use this, a gun
manufacturer, and since that i want to ask mr. daniels, why did your company remove this post from twitter? >> congresswoman, this ad is about teaching children gun safety. >> why did you take it down, sir? >> teaching them what a goddess. >> why did you take it down sir, ask her the question plays? >> yes, ma'am. we took this ad down although it had a good message, we took it down because children had just been killed. we felt it was inappropriate. >> it wasn't appropriate, isn't that ironic that you who use this picture on social media, personally as a company decided it was inappropriate. the next thing i want to ask you mr. daniels, there was never a right time to post a photo like [inaudible]
the photo has never been taken. it is not an advertisement. the 2022 [inaudible] mr. samson, -- concerning to you? ms., i'm sorry. >> those polls are important because the firearms are consumer product. so, consumers are gonna be -- the messages impact them. one of the biggest messages that we need haven't talked about yet, is gun manufacturers claims the guts elect people safer. we've heard a lot about self-defense for example, in reality bringing a gun into your home makes it more likely that you are someone in your home will be harmed by that gun. rather than using it to defend yourselves. so, americans are looking for answers as to how to keep themselves safe. the social media post that suggest for example, if you
want safety you should bring a firearm into your home. or if you want safety, usually around the states armed with an ar-15, convincing the public, that's why it's an important. thing >> we at the time we had the wild wild lands, with every american walked on with a gun, and supposedly through education, compassion, and experience we learn that this -- in our constitution, it says it's clear that we did not have a police department. we didn't have an organized, funded body that is in place to protect us. so, again, i want to give a bible to every one of my colleagues and have a prayer session with all them. thank you. i yield. back >> gentlelady eels back, gentlemen from georgia mr. carter -- >> thank you madam chair, and thank all the witnesses here. it's really easy to profile and say, you're a gun manufacturer,
you're an awful person. terrible person. but that's not always the case, in fact that's never the case. and i just want to make sure you understand, daniel defenses, a major employer in my district that i have the honor and privilege of representing in the first congressional district of georgia. they provide jobs, well paying jobs in our community. and they're great jobs, great jobs that provide people with the opportunity to produce a great product and to be reimbursed for that product, and for the fine work that they do. mister daniel, before i get into a couple questions i notice that you have been asked time and time again during this hearing about some ads involving children, you haven't really had the opportunity to respond about the intent. i want to just give you the opportunity, if you wanted to comment on some of those ads and what exactly you had in mind when you are doing that? >> congressman, this photo was
taken by a parent who is teaching their child what a gun lots. as you notice in the photo, the parents hand was right in the -- the gun was unloaded, the child was being taught that you can't touch a gun without an adult. this is personal responsibility that i have been time to talk about. parents must teach their children how to handle firearms properly. just as you would teach a children not to get behind a driver seat of a car, and drive away, you must teach children, you must choose children to be safe with firearms. >> mister daniel, as i know all too well, your company's been very involved in the community, in our district, in fact i believe you sponsor a number of high school teams -- when you run violent groups and
like that, is that true? >> yes sir. we actually started a foundation called -- the purpose of the foundation is to help train young people on how to use firearms safely. >> and it would be easy to just profile as i said earlier, label you as an awful person who's just trying to get guns into the hands of kids, but it's quite the opposite you're trying to teach safety and actually helping young people, wouldn't you agree? >> yes sir. >> let me ask you this, you bought this company, is that right? >> what was the questions? or >> have this company get started? daniel defense? >> i started shooting with an ar-15 and a handgun in the late 90s. i had grown up prompting, but never self-defen ar-15 and a
handgun and i started training for self-defense. i realized how effective the ar-15 was for self-defense. i wanted some parts for the gun that i had, nobody made, and i talked to the company they would not make the parts i needed, i talked into making 100, i have to sell 96 to get the four parts i wanted. those were the first parts we sold in 2001, and we sold the very first gun that we made in 2009. >> and how many people do you employ now in your business? >> about 400 people, sir. >> it went from a company that you started in your garage from when i understand, to where you're providing for 400 families? >> yes sir, that's correct. >> not only that, but teaching safety to children, young people, and giving them the opportunity to compete until learn, and to really grow is
that true? >> yes sir. and to become responsible adults. i know -- how to handle firearms. what is the job like, what is a job daniel offense look like, tell me about the typical job daniel defense? >> -- manufacture almost every part of the gun, all types of manufacturing jobs, engineering jobs. all types of -- there is assembly jobs. we very diverse in the jobs that we offer. we are one of the highest paying employers, where the highest in our county, and one of the highest in our region. >> well, thank you mister daniel for your commitment in our community. thank you for being a witness here today, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois,
representative schneider, now recognized. >> thank, you chairwoman maloney. thanks to the committee for allowing me to waive on to this committee today, for having this very important hearing. before i start, let me just ask a couple of questions. maybe we'll start, mister daniel, very quickly. what does -- stand for? >> excuse me? >> what does am and pieced and four? >> you're talking about from smith & wesson? >> yeah, when we're talking about a gun, what does am and p represent? >> i think smith & wesson uses it for military and police. >> thank you. mr. busse, i'll ask you this question. a follow-up shot in hunting, what is that? >> a follow-up shot in hunting is, well, a follow-up shot anywhere is a second shot. >> if you're hunting, if you're lucky, how many shots might you get a deer if you hit or miss the first time, how many follow-up shots are gonna get?
>> well, you shouldn't miss, i mean, a typical deer hunter may get one more, maybe. >> the idea of a gun that can fire 83 shots in just a couple of seconds for deer hunting, that doesn't make a lot of sense. >> not only does it make a lot of sense in a lot of states, that's prohibited by law. >> as i understand it, some places don't have three or five bullets in your gun. >> that's correct, yeah. >> i'm not only here is a representative, i'm a resident of highland park, which is, as you know, we've talked about today, had a horrible mass shooting at the fourth of july parade. like many residents, i joined thousands of families as we waited for the independence day parade, won a single drained man climbed a ladder to a rooftop in monstrous lee opened fire on the crowd from above. he fired 83 shots from an ar-15 smith & wesson rifle. military and police rifle, not hunting, military employees.
killing seven, wounding dozens more. it should've been a joyful celebration, it ended in tragedy and trauma for an entire community. his intent was to kill many more. mister daniel, in your testimony, you mention that they often target, the shooters go after soft targets. our parade crowd was not a soft target, per se, there were plenty, it wasn't a gun free zone, the police were there, first responders were there, in, fact they were heroes, he was able to fire off, he was able to fire off his bullets so fast that they couldn't even identify from where they were coming from. we heard from some of those victims today about how their families were shaken, their friends injured, and their sense of safety, our safety, it was forever broken. i want to thank the many victims who share their story. i commend the bravery for speaking out. without an assault weapon, the shooter in highland park would likely not have afflicted the carnage, the extreme carnage we experienced, the admin piece stands for, as you said, military and police, they saw these weapons of war to civilians like the monster who
murdered seven people. his intent was to kill many more. these weapons were designed to massacre. for that reason, i've been talking to my colleagues about the importance of voting for hr 18 away, a bill that would reinstate the ban, the federal ban on selling these assault weapons. i would like to address smith & wesson on the highland park shooting today, unfortunately, they're not here. mister daniel, let me turn to you. your company, daniel defense, as you mentioned, has grown, it's one of the leading voices in marketing assault weapons to civilians. in one of your ads, you use the slogan, use what they use, showing that you know these weapons are designed, they, i assume, being the military, that they're designed for war. using them in a civilian role is all the same. you posted that photo, we've talked about, tyler holding a gun. i understand why you took it down. i have a degree in business from kellogg school of northwestern, a marketing school.
we know the power of marketing, especially the power of marketing young people, whether it's serial, cigarettes, or in this case, guns. given that you are knowingly marketing to young people, and you know that these young people in particular, their weapon of choice is the assault weapon, the air 15, why do you think companies should be shielded from liability if a weapon marketed to a young person is used by a young person to massacre a community, whether it's uvalde, buffalo, highland park, or any of the other countless names we've already experienced these tragedies? >> congressman, we market and sell our products to law-abiding citizens, who are adults. we cannot sell firearms to children. >> the marketing to young people creates the market. we know marketing works, that's why companies spend millions and billions of dollars selling everything from makeup to cereal, as i talked about, two
cars. imagery matters. the connection to military for these young people, it is not for hunting, you don't take these weapons to go on hunt deer or do hunting. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman may answer the question. but >> what was the question? >> it was more of a comment, so, i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back, before we close, i want to offer the ranking member not far too nerdy to offer any closing remarks he may have. ranking member comer, you are now recognized. >> thank, you madam chair. i want to thank our witnesses who are here today, especially want to thank ruger and daniel defense who are here today for a manufacturing and employing and making an investment in the united states. that's an issue that we're trying to focus on in congress, trying to keep manufacturing in the united states. you know, the democrats talk a lot about the hundreds of mass shootings in america, committed
by criminals, who are either immediately arrested or killed on the spot. but they say nothing about the hundred thousand people who have died of fentanyl over those overdoses that came at the hands of illegals who crossed are and secure border but, liberals have passed the most strict them laws in america, in cities like chicago, new york, and washington d.c., yet these cities continue to have the highest rates of gun violence. banning guns from law-abiding citizens is simply not the answer. republicans will never turn our back on the second amendment. so, let's focus where there is consensus among both parties, you can't legislate against evil. if you could, i think there we 535 votes in favor of legislating against it. we can focus and find better
security at our schools. we can find and focus on better mental health awareness and detection. for goodness sakes, we can find our police. hopefully the american people have seen what happens when we have lacks prosecutors, i think we've seen what happens in places like san francisco, which is probably the most liberal city in the united states, they had a recall of their local prosecutor because the american people will not tolerate letting criminals out in the name of criminal justice. i think there are many areas where both parties can come together to focus on achievable solutions. i'm willing to do, that madam chair. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. i recognize myself for closing statements. today, for the first time in recent history, gun industry executives testified to congress about their business
practices. i was sincerely hoping that they would use this opportunity to acknowledge the role in the violence plaguing our nation. to apologize to the families who are here with us today, who have been devastated by their products, and to agree to stop selling the most dangerous weapons. sadly, they refused. mister daniel, the ceo of daniel defense blamed gun violence on the decline of what he called, personal responsibility. when i asked about his own responsibility for selling guns, to mass murderers, he claimed that these shootings are just a local problem. ceo of ruger, mr. killoy, was asked of his company to take the basic step of tracking the crimes that are committed with the guns he sells, like other manufacturers. his answer was, that's not my job. the third one that we invited
didn't even bother to show up. that is why i intend to seek additional documents from that company by subpoena. it's no secret why gun ceos are so desperate to avoid taking responsibility for the deaths caused by their products. our investigation found that these companies made over a billion dollars, selling assault weapons in the last decade. they are choosing their bottom line over the lives of their fellow americans. sense it's clear that the gun industry won't protect americans, congress must act. we must ban weapons of war from our communities, we must repeal the immunity from lawsuits that gunmakers and joy, unlike every other industry in america, we must finally hold the gun manufacturers to account. this hearing is not the end, our committee will continue our investigation, and i will keep fighting for a common sense gun
safety laws. this is the fight we must and will win, and i yield back. i now recognize myself for a closing adjournment. i want to thank our panelists for their remarks. i want to thank the families that are here with us today to. i want to commend my colleagues for participating in the support in conversation. and with that, without objection -- i flood days which into submit extraneous materials. and to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to the chair. which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their response. i ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as agreeable, this meeting is adjourned.
they manufactured executives just wrapped up testifying and how they market their products that respond to gun violence in this country. if you missed any part of this hearing, you can watch it tonight at 9:30 pm eastern on c-span. you can also watch on c-span now, our free mobile video app. or online at c-span.org.
pro-choice and for life advocates and care providers testify before the house reform and oversight committee about the impact of the supreme court's decision to overturn roe v. wade. witnesses respond to questions about abortion access for women in states that have banned the procedure, and the point of which life begins. shortly, in just a moment, when they tell me they are ready to begin the live stream. the committee will come to