FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEWS RELEASE
January 20, 2016
For More Information, contact:
Luther Strange
Mike Lewis (334) 353-2199
Alabama Attorney General
Joy Patterson (334) 242-7491
Page 1 of 5
ALABAMA ATTORNEY GENERAL LUTHER STRANGE TESTIFIES BEFORE
U.S. SENATE PANEL AGAINST PRESIDENT OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE ACTIONS
ON GUNS
(WASHINGTON, DC) – Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange told a U.S. Senate
panel Wednesday that President Obama’s recent executive actions on guns will have no
meaningful impact in addressing gun violence but will hurt lawful gun owners.
Attorney General Strange was invited to testify before the U.S. Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies as the
subcommittee reviewed the Department of Justice’s role in implementing new executive
actions related to gun control.
“The centerpiece of the president’s order – expanding background checks to close what
some call the gun show loophole – is not only an unwarranted assault on the Second
Amendment, but it will also be ineffective in making a significant contribution towards
reducing overall gun crimes,” Attorney General Strange told the Senate subcommittee.
“The only practical impact of the president’s gun show provision will be to intimidate
and frighten law abiding citizens so that they will refrain from selling their guns at all
for fear they will be prosecuted for failure to register as a firearms dealer,” he added.
Attorney General Strange, who spoke during the same hearing as U.S. Attorney General
Loretta Lynch, told the Senate subcommittee that enforcing federal gun laws already on
the books will have a greater positive effect.
“I join the majority of Americans in supporting legitimate efforts to curb gun violence in
our land. I also follow the recommendations of law enforcement in my state that the
most effective way to address gun crimes is to enforce the abundant existing laws we
already have, while giving law enforcement the tools to do their jobs.”
Attorney General Strange joined four other witnesses in testifying at the Capitol Hill
hearing Wednesday. Other witnesses included U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch,
former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, Mark Barden, Founder and Managing
Director of Sandy Hook Promise, and Dr. Joyce Lee Malcolm, professor, George Mason
University School of Law.
A copy of Attorney General Strange’s testimony is attached.
501 Washington Avenue * Montgomery, AL 36104 * (334) 242-7300
www.ago.state.al.us Page 2 of 5
Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange
Testimony before
U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related
Agencies
January 20, 2016
Chairman Shelby, Vice Chairman Mikulski, and members of the Senate CJS
subcommittee, I am honored by your invitation to speak today about an issue of
importance to all Americans – reducing gun violence while ensuring that the
fundamental right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms is not infringed.
I wish to commend your subcommittee for convening this panel to explore how best to
balance these goals. They are not mutually exclusive.
My duty as attorney general is to enforce the law. I don’t have the ability to pick and
choose which laws to uphold because of political pressure or personal preference. As
the chief law enforcement official of the State of Alabama for the last five years, I have
witnessed firsthand the challenge of safeguarding the gun rights of law abiding citizens
while also working to deny law breakers the ability to use firearms to commit crimes.
And in those five years I have learned an important lesson. Further limiting the ability
of responsible citizens to buy a gun will not keep criminals from getting one.
In fact, after I learned I would be testifying before this committee, I reached out to local
police chiefs soliciting their advice on what is working and what is not in stopping gun
violence on the street. I wanted to be able to carry their message, based on decades of
experience on the front lines of this fight, to this committee. Again and again, I heard
the same thing.
o Enforce the laws already on the books
o Prosecute criminals for gun-related crimes
o Stop releasing violent criminals from jail before their sentences are completed
They directed their concerns squarely at a federal government which they see as failing
to uphold its commitment to hold criminals accountable for gun crimes. And they have
their doubts about the promises they hear coming out of Washington.
As one police chief put it, “If anyone of any political stripe was sincerely concerned
about gun violence they would take a no-holds-barred approach to enforcing the
seemingly endless laws relating to guns that are already on the books!”
I don’t think there is anyone in America whose heart doesn’t break over the news of
mass shootings that take innocent lives. There is no one in this country who opposes
making our streets safer. We all want to do everything we can to prevent more gun
crimes. But we must also be sure that political actions taken in the name of solving the Page 3 of 5
problem are grounded in facts. They must be vetted by representatives of the American
people, and they must not undermine our constitutional rights.
Two weeks ago President Obama announced a series of executive actions he asserted
would reduce gun violence. But while he may have the best of intentions, the law
enforcement officers in my state tell me these actions will have not have a meaningful
impact.
The centerpiece of the president’s order – expanding background checks to close what
some call the gun show loophole – is not only an unwarranted assault on the Second
Amendment, but it will also be ineffective in making a significant contribution toward
reducing overall gun crimes.
It will be ineffective because less than one percent of illegal gun purchases are
determined to come from gun shows and fewer still are involved in violent crimes. If
our goal is to reduce crime and make our streets safer, the President’s actions will not
accomplish it.
The only practical impact of the president’s gun show provision will be to intimidate
and frighten law abiding citizens so that they will refrain from selling their guns at all
for fear they will be prosecuted for failure to register as a firearms dealer.
Instead of new rules and regulations, a better approach would be to enforce the laws we
have by increasing the efficiency of and funding for the existing National Instant Check
System. The NICS system is critical to ensuring that guns don’t end up in the wrong
hands. And yet we can do better. With more funding and support, states can ensure
that every felony conviction is reported to the system. Because if the information isn’t in
the system, the system can’t work. And just as importantly, when the system does work
and we find felons attempting to buy guns, we must prosecute them.
Using the same laws which are on the books today, the Bush administration secured 35
percent more federal gun convictions in 2004 and 2005 than the Obama administration
did in 2014. With the exception of a slight uptick in 2012, federal gun convictions have
fallen every year President Obama has been in office.
If we are not enforcing our laws intended to keep criminals from getting guns, then
adding new executive orders on top of those laws, even if well-designed, will
accomplish nothing.
At the same time, the federal government must do more to provide law enforcement the
tools they need to do their jobs. We need a federal-state partnership, whether it is
through increased training, access to better equipment, or simply providing funding to
prosecute crimes.
I recently heard from Calhoun County Sheriff Larry Amerson, former president of the
National Sheriffs’ Association and one of the finest law enforcement officers in Page 4 of 5
Alabama. Too many times, he’s had to visit officers in the hospital with gunshot
wounds or attend funerals of officers killed in the line of duty. He knows the
importance of this issue. And his message to this committee is give officers the tools
they need to do their jobs. Recent actions here in Washington have prevented Sheriff
Amerson from getting the equipment he needs to keep his officers safe. He wrote to me,
“Now we have no protection. We cannot even get surplus military helmets.”
Finally, we need to do more at the state and federal level to address issues related to
mental health. While I may not agree with the approach, I was glad to see that President
Obama made a focus on mental health a priority in his executive actions. There is no
doubt that mentally ill individuals have been responsible for many violent gun crimes
in our country and they represent a particular threat to law enforcement who often are
unaware of their condition. I’ve seen it firsthand.
In 2012, I attended the funeral of a Baldwin County, Alabama Sheriff’s deputy who lost
his life in the line of duty. He had responded to a call in which a mentally ill man was
acting aggressively toward family members. He pulled a gun and fired on two
deputies, killing one and wounding the other.
But while mental illness is a serious concern, it is a problem that cannot be addressed
through an executive order. There is no quick fix. We must ensure that while instituting
any enhanced reporting requirements that we do not deny the constitutional rights of
those who might not truly be mentally incompetent. Instead, there should be a
procedure in place to protect the rights of the mentally ill while ensuring that they are
not a danger to themselves or society.
And we must ensure that in focusing on mental illness, we do not inadvertently
discourage people from seeking help for their problems. For instance, a soldier who
returns home from war should not lose the right to bear arms that he fought to defend
simply because he seeks help for PTSD or other psychological problems. A person on
Social Security should not lose their right to bear arms simply because they decide to
assign a family member or friend to handle their affairs. These are the subtle nuances
that any attempt to address this problem will bring. And to handle them correctly will
require a bipartisan effort, led and debated here in Congress.
In summation, Mr. Chairman, I join a majority of Americans in supporting legitimate
efforts to curb gun violence in our land. I also follow the recommendations of law
enforcement in my state that the most effective way to address gun crimes is to enforce
the abundant existing laws we already have, while giving law enforcement the tools
they need to do their jobs. As Sheriff Amerson has said, “Many people opposed to more
gun laws support enforcing existing laws. Why not try it?”
Americans’ right to bear arms should be protected and we can do that and protect
Americans from gun crimes by enforcing the law. Page 5 of 5
Thank you.
-30-
