Dear
Mr. Kolosik:
Thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
contact
me.
As
your
senator,
it
is
important
that
I
hear
from
you.
I
want
you
to
know
that
I
value
your
opinion
on
firearms,
and
I
welcome
this
discussion.
I
was
heartbroken
to
hear
about
the
shooting
which
took
place
at
Marjory
Stoneman
Douglas
High
School
in
Parkland,
Florida
on
Valentine’s
Day.
This
senseless
tragedy
took
the
lives
of
17
innocent
people.
I
am
outraged
that
more
was
not
done
to
prevent
it,
and
I
am
taking
action
to
work
to
prevent
future
shootings.
Last
fall
in
Sutherland
Springs,
Texas,
we
saw
the
horrible
result
of
the
government’s
failure
to
correctly
submit
names
to
the
National
Instant
Criminal
Background
Check
System
(NICS).
And
now
in
Parkland,
Florida,
we
are
witnessing
what
happens
when
federal
and
state
agencies
and
law
enforcement
officials fail
to
follow
multiple
tips
about
a
clearly
disturbed
and
dangerous
individual.
Although
there
were
clear
warning
signs
that
should
have
prevented
the
shooter
from
legally
purchasing
a
firearm,
the
system
failed
us.
According
to
news
reports,
the
Florida
Department
of
Children
and
Families
(DCF)
opened
an
investigation
into
the
shooter
in
2016
and
visited
his
family
over
allegations
of
medical
neglect.
Alarmingly,
DCF
uncovered
information
that
the
shooter
posted
pictures
showing
self-harm
in
Snapchat
posts,
and
that
he
“had
plans
to
go
out
and
buy
a
gun”
at
that
time.
Despite
all
the
warning
signs,
after
six
weeks
the
DCF
closed
their
investigation
without
taking
further
action.
Then,
in
September
2017,
an
individual
alerted
the
Federal
Bureau
of
Investigation
(FBI)
to
comments
that
the
shooter
made
on
YouTube.
In
a
post
he
signed
with
his
own
name,
the
shooter
said,
“I’m
going
to
be
a
professional
school
shooter.”
The
FBI
stated
that
it
conducted
an
initial
database
review,
but
was
unable
to
“further
identify
the
person
who
actually
made
the
comment.”
Additionally,
on
January
5,
2018,
the
FBI
stated
it
received
information
on
its
Public
Access
Line
from
“a
person
close
to”
the
shooter
about
his
“gun
ownership,
desire
to
kill
people,
erratic
behavior,
and
disturbing
social
media
posts,
as
well
as
the
potential
of
him
conducting
a
school
shooting.”
Although
the
established
protocol
was
for
the
FBI
to
forward
this
information
to
the
FBI
Miami
Field
Office,
where
the
necessary
and
appropriate
steps
would
have
been
taken,
this
did
not
happen
and
there
was
no
further
investigation.
This
is
deeply
troubling,
which
is
why
I
sent
a
letter
demanding
that
the
FBI
and
Google,
which
owns
YouTube,
explain
why
these
ominous
and
clear
threats
made
by
the
shooter
did
not
result
in
preventative
action
by
law
enforcement.
I
also
arranged
for
the
FBI,
Google,
and
Facebook
to
brief
the
Senate
Judiciary
Committee
on
the
Parkland
shooting
to
determine
what
they
could
have
done
to
prevent
it.
The
briefings
were
an
important
first
step
to
ensure
that
similar
situations
can
be
prevented
in
the
future.
To
keep
our
country
safe,
the
government
asks
its
citizens
to
“see
something,
say
something.”
But
that
can
only
work
when
the
government
follows
through
when
vigilant
Americans
speak
up.
The
government
must
do
a
better
job
to
follow
the
laws
and
regulations
that
are
already
on
the
books
and
are
designed
to
prevent
tragedies
like
the
one
in
Parkland,
Florida.
In
response
to
tragedies
like
this,
there
are
often
calls
to
ban
all
guns,
to
ban
the
specific
type
of
weapon
that
was
used
in
the
most
recent
shooting,
or
to
ban
so-called
“assault
weapons.”
Such
bans
would
be
unconstitutional
or
ineffective.
In
2008,
the
Supreme
Court
recognized
in District
of
Columbia
v.
Heller that
the
Second
Amendment
of
the
Constitution
protects
an
individual’s
right
to
keep
and
bear
arms
for
lawful
purposes
such
as
self-defense
and
recreation,
so
an
outright
ban
on
guns
is
clearly
unconstitutional.
In
2004,
a
Department
of
Justice
study
concluded
that—after
a
ten-year
assault
weapons
ban—there
was
no
statistically
significant
evidence
that
banning
“assault
weapons”
reduced
gun
murders.
And
the
guns
used
in
recent
mass
shootings
have
features
that
are
common
to
many
different
models
of
guns,
so
banning
a
specific
type
of
gun
would
not
prevent
future
shootings.
I
believe
the
best
way
to
prevent
school
shootings
is
to
keep
guns
out
of
the
hands
of
dangerous
individuals
who
should
not
possess
them.
And
I
am
taking
action
to
prevent
future
mass
shootings.
In
December,
the
Senate
Judiciary
Committee,
which
I
chair,
held
a
hearing
on
improving
the
NICS
background
check
system
for
gun
purchasers
and
restricting
bump
stocks—the
devices
that
enabled
the
shooter
in
the
October
1,
2017
Las
Vegas
shooting
to
fire
bullets
at
the
speed
of
an
automatic
weapon.
In
2013,
Senator
Cruz
and
I
offered
a
substitute
amendment
to
pending
gun
legislation
on
the
Senate
floor,
entitled,
the
“Protecting
Communities
and
Preserving
the
Second
Amendment
Act.”
One
of
the
most
significant
aspects
of
my
amendment
was
that
it
would
have
provided
$300
million
for
the
Secure
our
Schools
(SOS)
grant
program
–
a
program
that
was
eliminated
because
neither
the
House
of
Representatives
nor
the
Senate
Commerce,
Justice,
and
Science
Committees
included
funding
for
it
in
their
fiscal
year
2012
budget
bills.
The
SOS
grant
offered
funding
to
local
governments
in
order
to
assist
with
the
development
of
school
safety
resources,
such
as
the
use
and
placement
of
metal
detectors,
locks,
lighting,
security
training
of
personnel
and
students,
in
addition
to
supporting
coordination
measures
between
local
law
enforcement
and
schools.
However,
despite
bipartisan
support,
members
from
across
the
aisle
blocked
the
adoption
of
my
amendment,
which
I
believe
could
have
provided
local
communities
and
schools
the
necessary
tools
to
mitigate
and
possibly
prevent
future
school
shooting.
It
would
also
have
further
appropriated
funds
for
this
important
program
until
2023,
providing
communities
across
the
country
an
opportunity
to
apply
for
the
SOS
grant
for
years
to
come.
Because
I
feel
this
legislation
is
vital
for
combatting
mass
shootings,
Senator
Cruz
and
I
reintroduced
the
“Protecting
Communities
and
Preserving
the
Second
Amendment
Act”
(S.
2502)
as
a
stand-alone
bill
on
March
6,
2018.
In
addition
to
providing
grant
funding,
this
bill
would
take
an
important
step
forward
by
commissioning
a
study
on
the
causes
of
mass
shootings
from
the
National
Institute
of
Justice
and
National
Academy
of
Sciences.
This
bill
would
also
create
a
new
task
force
which
would
allocate
additional
funds
in
order
to
prosecute
felons
and
fugitives
who
attempt
to
buy
guns.
It
also
increases
federal
funding
for
15
jurisdictions
with
the
highest
violent-crime
rates
in
order
to
assist
prosecutors
and
the
Bureau
of
Alcohol,
Tobacco,
Firearms,
and
Explosives
Agents
in
their
investigative
and
prosecutorial
efforts
of
firearm
offenses.
Further,
S.
2502
would
create
new
criminal
offenses
for
the
illegal
trafficking
of
firearms
and
straw
purchases.
In
addition,
I
have
expressed
support
regarding
President
Trump’s
call
for
the
Department
of
Justice
to
issue
new
regulations
making
bump
stocks
and
similar
devices
illegal.
And
I
am
actively
working
with
Senators
Feinstein
and
Cornyn
to
advance
legislation
they
introduced
following
the
tragedy
in
Texas.
Their
bill,
the
“Fix
NICS
Act
of
2017”
(S.
2135),
would
penalize
federal
agencies
who
fail
to
comply
with
current
law
which
requires
them
to
properly
report
dangerous
individuals
and
violent
criminals
to
the
National
Instant
Background
Check
System
(NICS),
while
also
providing
incentives
to
states
to
improve
their
overall
criminal
history
reporting.
This
bill
will
help
keep
guns
out
of
the
hands
of
criminals
and
other
individuals
that
are
not
allowed
to
possess
them.
I
have
also
been
working
extensively
with
Senator
Hatch
and
the
White
House
on
legislation
designed
to
improve
school
safety
and
prevent
future
mass
shootings.
The
culmination
of
our
work
resulted
in
the
introduction
of
the
“Students,
Teachers,
and
Officers
Preventing
(STOP)
School
Violence
Act”
(S.
2495),
on
March
5,
2018.
This
bill
will
provide
funding
to
make
school
facilities
safer
by
providing
training
so
that
school
administrators
and
law
enforcement
officials
can
work
to
identify
and
treat
troubled
students
to
prevent
school
violence
before
it
starts.
It
will
also
provide
grants
to
schools
looking
to
improve
their
infrastructure
which
will
help
deter
and
hopefully
prevent
potential
school
shooters
from
acting.
Furthermore,
in
my
continued
leadership
of
trying
to
prevent
these
tragedies
from
occurring,
I,
along
with
13
other
Senators,
introduced
the
“School
Safety
and
Mental
Health
Services
Act”
(S.
2513)
on
March
7,
2018.
This
bill,
among
other
things,
would
allow
100,000
public
schools
to
improve
safety
by
using
federal
dollars
for
school
counselors,
alarm
systems,
security
cameras,
and
crisis
intervention
training.
Students
should
not
only
feel
safe
at
school,
but
they
should
be
safe
at
school.
Making
federal
resources
available
so
schools
can
upgrade
their
security
and
mental
health
programs
and
infrastructure
will
make
all
of
our
students
safer.
To
help
prevent
future
tragedies
from
occurring,
this
Committee
will
be
holding
an
oversight
hearing
on
the
Parkland,
Florida
shooting
and
general
school
safety
on
March
14,
2018,
which
I
look
forward
to
chairing.
I
would
also
like
to
address
the
reports
that
I
single
handedly
overturned
a
regulation
issued
by
the
Social
Security
Administration
(SSA)
last
February
that
would
make
it
easier
for
“mentally
ill”
individuals
to
purchase
firearms.
This
could
not
be
further
from
the
truth.
As
you
may
be
aware,
the
FBI’s
NICS
maintains
a
list
of
persons
who
are
deemed
"mentally
defective"
and
placement
on
that
list
precludes
ownership
and
possession
of
firearms. In
April
2015,
I
wrote
a
letter
to
then-Attorney
General
Eric
Holder,
outlining
my
concerns
that
the
Department
of
Veterans'
Affairs
(VA)
submits
names
to
the
NICS
list
simply
for
receiving
financial
assistance
to
manage
their
VA
benefits,
not
whether
they
are
a
danger
to
self
or
others.
In
March
2016,
I
reached
out
to
the
VA
to
address
similar
concerns.
The
SSA
proposed
a
draft
rule
to
use
the
same
flawed
VA
standard
to
report
Social
Security
beneficiaries
to
the
FBI
for
subsequent
placement
on
the
NICS
list. On
May
26,
2016,
I
wrote
a
letter
to
Carolyn
W.
Colvin,
Acting
Commissioner
of
the
Social
Security
Administration,
reiterating
the
concerns
I
raised
with
her
in
a
July
24,
2015
letter. In
my
initial
letter,
I
stated
that
4.2
million
Americans
have
been
appointed
representative
payees
by
the
SSA,
which
means
that
if
the
SSA
attempts
to
regulate
those
individuals,
then
the
new
regulatory
scheme
could
potentially
result
in
one
of
the
largest
gun
bans
in
United
States
history.
It
is
essential
to
ensure
that
the
process
by
which
the
SSA,
and
all
federal
agencies,
report
names
to
the
FBI
for
placement
on
the
NICS
list
recognizes
and
protects
the
fundamental
nature
of
the
Second
Amendment.
After
careful
study,
it
became
clear
that
the
SSA
regulation
was
an
abridgement
of
the
Second
Amendment
right
of
SSA
beneficiaries,
failed
to
pass
constitutional
muster,
and
was
patently
unfair
in
a
number
of
ways.
First,
the
SSA
regulation
did
not
require
a
formal
hearing
before
reporting
people
to
NICS
thereby
violating
due
process
rights.
Federal
law
makes
clear
that
an
“adjudication”
is
required
before
firearms
disabilities
are
incurred. The
agency
regulation
failed
in
that
regard
because
there
can
be
no
“adjudication”
without
a
hearing.
Second,
it
did
not
require
the
SSA
to
find
a
person
mentally
ill
before
reporting
to
the
NICS.
The
agency
regulation
merely
used
a
vague
disorders
list
that
included
eating
disorders
and
disorders
that
impact
sleep
to
assign
a
person
a
representative
payee.
Then,
once
that
assignment
is
made,
the
SSA
would
report
people
to
the
gun
ban
list
resulting
in
the
loss
of
firearms.
And
third,
it
did
not
require
the
SSA
to
find
a
person
dangerous
to
self
or
others
before
reporting
to
the
NICS.
However,
in
order
for
an
individual
to
remove
their
name
from
the
list,
he
or
she
must
prove
that
they
are
not
dangerous.
So,
on
the
one
hand
the
regulation
did
not
require
the
government
to
prove
someone
dangerous
to
report
them
to
the
gun
ban
list,
but
on
the
other
hand
existing
law
requires
anyone
on
the
gun
ban
list
to
prove
they
are
not
dangerous
to
get
their
names
off
and
their
guns
back. This
double
standard
is
patently
unfair.
The
government
should
be
held
to
the
same
standard
as
the
people.
Thus,
the
SSA
regulation
was
a
textbook
example
of
unfairly
stigmatizing
people
with
disabilities
and
failed
to
solve
the
problem
it
aimed
to
accomplish,
which
is
why
it
was
opposed
by
both
sides
of
the
aisle.
The
American
Civil
Liberties
Union
(ACLU)
was
one
of
the
lead
organizations
who
spoke
out
against
this
regulation,
stating:
We
oppose
this
[SSA]
rule
because
it
advances
and
reinforces
the
harmful
stereotypes
that
people
with
mental
disabilities,
a
vast
and
diverse
group
of
citizens,
are
violent
and
should
not
own
a
gun.
There
is
no
data
to
support
a
connection
between
the
need
for
a
representative
payee
to
manage
one’s
Social
Security
disability
benefits
and
a
propensity
toward
gun
violence.
The
rule
further
demonstrates
the
damaging
phenomenon
of
‘spread,’
or
the
perception
that
a
disabled
individual
with
one
area
of
impairment
automatically
has
additional,
negative
and
unrelated
attributes.
Accordingly,
on
January
30,
2017,
I
introduced
a
resolution
(S.J.
Res.
14),
to
provide
for
congressional
disapproval
of
this
misguided
administrative
rule. My
resolution
received
32
bipartisan
cosponsors
and
was
supported
by
over
20
disability
rights
groups.
Other
notable
groups
who
supported
the
repeal
of
the
agency’s
regulation
included
the
Autistic
Self
Advocacy
Network,
Disability
Law,
and
the
National
Coalition
for
Mental
Health
Recovery.
On February
15,
2017,
the
Senate
passed
the
House
companion
to
my
resolution
in
bipartisan
fashion,
57-43,
and
on
February
28,
2017,
President
Trump
signed
it
into
law.
Importantly,
even
with
the
repeal
of
the
SSA’s
regulation,
gun
safety
prohibitions
are
still
in
place. For
example,
federal
law
still
prohibits
those
who
are
actually
found
to
be
dangerous
or
mentally
ill
from
purchasing
firearms. The
same
can
be
said
for
felons,
those
with
misdemeanor
domestic
violence
convictions,
and
people
who
have
been
involuntarily
committed
to
a
mental
institution.
However,
as
we
have
seen,
federal
agencies
need
to
do
a
better
job,
and
be
held
accountable
for
not
enforcing
the
laws
that
could
prevent
dangerous
individuals
from
purchasing
firearms. I
have
consistently
fought
to
strengthen
our
nation’s
mental
health
services
and
to
limit
access
to
firearms
for
those
who
seek
to
do
us
harm. I
remain
committed
to
these
efforts,
which
is
why
I
have
proposed
legislation
several
times
to
improve
the
procedures
by
which
the
government
can
report
names
to
the
gun
ban
list
if
a
person
is
dangerous.
I
also
understand
that
some
have
expressed
support
to
end
“gun-free
school
zones.”
Representative
Massie
has
introduced
a
bill,
H.R.
34,
the
“Safe
Students
Act”,
which
would
repeal
the
Gun-Free
School
Zone
Act
of
1990.
This
would
allow
students
or
faculty
to
bring
a
firearm
into
a
“school
zone”,
with
the
intended
effect
of
mitigating
future
school
shootings.
This
bill
has
been
referred
to
the
House
Judiciary
Subcommittee
on
Crime,
Terrorism,
Homeland
Security,
and
Investigations,
where
lawmakers
will
choose
whether
or
not
they
will
debate
this
legislation.
Should
the
Senate
consider
H.R.
34,
I
will
closely
examine
the
bill
to
determine
its
possible
effects
on
our
schools
and
children.
I
want
you
to
know
that
I
am
a
firm
supporter
of
our
Second
Amendment
right
to
bear
arms,
and
have
continually
voted
to
uphold
our
rights
under
the
Second
Amendment.
You
can
be
sure
that
any
bill
that
seeks
to
restrict
or
restrain
our
Second
Amendment
rights
will
be
given
the
strictest
scrutiny
and
I
will
fight
to
ensure
that
no
new
extreme
limitations
are
placed
upon
our
Constitutional
right
to
bear
arms.
I
look
forward
to
working
with
Congress
and
the
White
House
to
prevent
future
shootings
and
to
make
our
schools
and
our
country
safer.
As
I
do
so,
I
will
keep
your
thoughts
in
mind.
Again,
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
contact
me,
and
I
encourage
you
to
keep
in
touch.
