Steve scalise baseball shooting
courtesy ABC News
Previous Post
Next Post

Rep. Steve Scalise was shot by James Hodgkinson on a baseball field in June of 2017. He almost died of his wounds that day. In the Democrats’ anti-gun playbook, actual “gun violence” victims and survivors have particular moral authority to talk about firearms and their role in our society.

Yesterday the House Judiciary Committee held a one-sided dog and pony show hearing on “gun violence.” But Scalise, an actual survivor of exactly the kind of violence the Democrats claim to be so concerned about, wasn’t allowed to testify.

Rep. Scalise decided to make a statement anyway. Here is his testimony for the record, testimony the committee wasn’t willing to hear because it doesn’t fit the narrative of the day:

My name is Steve Scalise. I am the Congressman for Louisiana’s 1st District. I am the Republican Whip. I am also a target of gun violence.

Many of you may be familiar with the events of June 14, 2017. Around 7:00 AM, at the last morning practice before the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity, an Illinois man named James Hodgkinson opened fire on myself and a group of Republican legislators and volunteers on an Alexandria, Va. baseball field.

Fortunately, as a member of House leadership, I was accompanied by my Capitol Police security detail who were able to return fire and engage the shooter until additional law enforcement officers arrived and ultimately took down the shooter. I was shot and nearly fatally wounded, and both of my detail agents were shot as well. I am alive today thanks to the bravery of U.S. Capitol Police and the Alexandria Police, heroes like Congressman Brad Wenstrup and the first responders who rushed to the scene, the incredible medical team at Washington MedStar Hospital Center, and most importantly the grace of God.

I applaud the intentions behind this hearing and believe we are all pursuing the same goal of reducing gun violence. As someone who experienced gun violence, I do not want anyone else to go through that trauma. However, it is also important to me that we be honest with ourselves and the American people about what will — or won’t — actually prevent these tragedies. The shooter who targeted me that morning was armed with an SKS rifle and a 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun, both of which were purchased in compliance with Illinois gun laws.

The new gun control restrictions currently being considered by the Democratic majority in H.R. 8 would not have prevented my shooting.

In fact, these new gun control measures being proposed in H.R. 8 would not have prevented any number of recent mass violence events. Several perpetrators of recent multi-victim shootings also purchased their guns legally. In some instances, the background check system failed, and lack of intervention from law enforcement failed to intercept potential threats.

I want to stress that the man who shot me was issued a permit to purchase firearms by the state of Illinois, and had acquired them legally. At Virginia Tech, Charleston, and Sutherland Springs failures in the background check system allowed individuals to illegally obtain the firearms they used to commit their crimes. The alleged loopholes that H.R. 8 claims to fix would not have prevented these tragedies either.

Instead, whether intentionally or not, the gun control proposals in H.R. 8 could turn law abiding citizens into criminals while also failing to achieve the stated purpose of reducing gun violence.

A recent study by the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis and Johns Hopkins University into California’s effort to implement “comprehensive background checks” found that, “The simultaneous implementation of [the Comprehensive Background Check policy] and [prohibitions on firearm purchase and possession for persons convicted within the past 10 years of certain violent crimes classified as misdemeanors] was not associated with a net change in the firearm homicide rate over the ensuing 10 years in California.” Even though California implemented more stringent background checks, this study shows that these measures did not reduce gun violence.

In fact, most criminals obtain firearms through unlawful means — whether through theft, straw purchases, or lying on the required paperwork. A DOJ study of federal inmates found that only seven percent who possessed a firearm while committing the crime they were serving time for purchased it legally from a firearms dealer under their own name. Based on similar gun control measures in states like California, H.R. 8 would not deter a criminal from engaging in criminal activity, and it won’t decrease gun crime. Instead, it only succeeds in limiting the ways that law-abiding citizens could exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Every single month in America, law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits defend themselves and others against criminals who have guns. For example, on January 8th, a man approached a 25-year-old woman in Chicago, displayed a weapon, and attempted to rob her at a bus stop. The woman had a concealed carry permit. She drew her own weapon and fired a shot, killing the armed robber. The owner of a nearby pharmacy said such violence happens “all over” Chicago. However, in this case, the intended victim was able to defend herself with her own gun.

On January 2nd, a Good Samaritan in California with a concealed carry permit used his firearm to stop an attempted stabbing of a security guard and held the perpetrator until law enforcement could arrive at the scene.

On January 17th, a man at an IHOP in Alabama opened fire on employees, killing one before another employee pulled his handgun and killed the shooter in self-defense.

On January 29th, an armed robber held up a Family Dollar Store in Georgia. A customer was able to use a personal firearm to shoot and kill the robber before the criminal could hurt any of the many employees or customers in the store.

These are just some examples from the last month alone. There are hundreds of stories like these every single year from law-abiding Americans all over the country.

I am alive due to the effective and immediate response of my Capitol Police detail, and the Alexandria Police Department. Most victims of gun violence do not have law enforcement already on the scene to respond to a violent gunman. Instead of making it harder for citizens to defend themselves until law enforcement arrives, Congress should consider legislation like H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, a bill that would help law-abiding citizens have the same tools to defend themselves as a criminal has of trying to inflict harm, regardless of where they travel.

I firmly believe we must never forget, nor minimize, the importance of the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

H.R. 8, as well as other new gun control legislation currently being considered by the House Democrat majority do not accomplish the goal of reducing gun violence.

If our goal is to reduce gun violence, then we should focus on penalizing criminals, not law-abiding citizens.

Thank you.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. ‘But Scalise… wasn’t allowed to testify.’

    Par for the course for the Commiecrat Party. Curbing ‘gunviolence’ isn’t the agenda here, subverting the Constitution is.

    • Curbing ‘gunviolence’ isn’t the agenda here, subverting the Constitution is.

      … as is punishing the political enemies of Democrats. In this particular case that punishment takes three forms:
      (1) Increasing the cost/time to acquire and possess firearms.
      (2) Increasing the likelihood that good people make an honest mistake which Democrats can use to imprison them.
      (3) Increasing the likelihood that good people are injured in violent attacks.

      • (2) Increasing the likelihood that good people make an honest mistake which Democrats can use to imprison them.

        Or the likelihood that good people will ignore the laws which might just save their lives and live the rest of that life in prison.

    • Oh, they are interested in preventing gun violence. It’s just not in the direction they say.
      The only Americans these @$$hats are interested in protecting from other armed Americans is themselves. They’ve finally shown their true colors and if we don’t get ready to go hot, we’ve lost it all.

    • “Par for the course for the Commiecrat Party. Curbing ‘gunviolence’ isn’t the agenda here, subverting the Constitution America is.” FTFY

      They have already subverted The Constitution. They make hollow oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. To them, it is out-dated piece of paper that was signed by old white slave owners. Their only goal now is to tear down our great country.

    • couldn’t help but notice when he brought that up at a round table discussion…he was promptly shut down by trump…who then went on to say some incredibly stupid things that have been causing us problems ever since….

  2. I find it funny they want to talk bout concealed reciprocity now. When we had control of both chambers all we heard was crickets and excuses. Now that there not a snow balls chance in a hot place that concealed reciprocity will pass both chambers they want to give us bull$!t lip service.
    Maybe its time to take out the trash the next time these crack head’s seats are on the the table.

    • About 1/3rd of politics is making the other side look bad for anything you can. That includes failing to do the very things you failed to do.

    • rdsii64,

      When we had control of both chambers …

      Wrong! Republicans never had control of the U.S. Senate. While Republicans had a slim majority in the U.S. Senate, they never had enough seats to overcome the U.S. Senate’s rule to end debate on a bill and vote on it.

      Yes, you heard that correctly. The U.S. Senate requires 60 votes to bring a bill to the floor to vote whether or not to pass the bill. Needless to say, if 60 Senators agree that they should vote on a bill, there will probably be enough votes to pass the bill.

      • Likewise, if less than 60 U.S. Senators are willing to bring a bill up for a vote, they probably do not have enough votes to pass the bill if it did come up for a vote.

        • UUuhhh, … Are you sure? I thought it took only 51 votes to pass the bill, the 60 votes is to stop discussion and take a vote. But I am not an expert.

        • LarryInTX,

          I believe your understanding is correct. What I was trying to convey is, if 60 U.S. Senators agree to end debate, they will almost certainly have enough votes to pass the bill. And the flip side of that is, if they cannot get 60 U.S. Senators to agree to end debate, there is a fair chance that they would not have enough Senators agree to pass the bill, although it could still pass by simple majority as you stated.

          At any rate that 60 vote hurdle to end debate and actually vote on the bill itself is the high bar that they will almost never be able to clear.

      • The nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the United States Senate to override a rule – specifically the 60-vote rule to close debate – by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the two-thirds supermajority normally required to amend the rules. This procedure effectively allows the Senate to decide any issue by simple majority vote, regardless of existing procedural rules such as Rule XXII which requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) to end a filibuster for legislation, and 67 for amending a Senate rule. The term “nuclear option” is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.

      • Thank God this is so. When the libs get control (<60%), they can't ram through every crazy law they want. Just like the "line item veto" Reagan wanted, it gives even more power to those who should be limited.

      • Then why do we always repeat the Diane Feinstein quote “if I could have gotten 51 votes, I’d say MR & MRS AMERICA…TURN THEM IN. ? I guess that a simple majority only works for democrats.

    • “I find it funny they want to talk bout concealed reciprocity now. When we had control of both chambers all we heard was crickets and excuses.”

      And this was different from all the votes take in favor of a border wall when there was absolutely no chance of it being passed or put on Trump’s desk for a signature.?


      It’s amazing how many around here do not understand how it all works, and for what purpose. Probably believe our system is still “by, for, and of the People”, too. Hint: look at any legislator’s net worth before and after one term in office…

  3. And of course, the dems tuned him out I’m sure, just like they did at the State of the Union Address… there has to be some Democrats that own guns,,, has to be, they just don’t have any balls,,,scared of Pelosi & Schumer,,, that’s why we don’t need Democrats in charge of any thing important…

  4. And because Scalise is on the “wrong team” from the Democommies, his victim status does no grant him all knowing, expert status on gun and violence and he will be ignored.

  5. Unless one party has 60 or more seats in the Senate, and the politicians in those seats are guaranteed to vote as a united block, there is no “control”.

    Juvenile moroons that use the tired line about “having control of the house and Senate” are merely demonstrating their dismal awareness of anything other than the pablum served to them by their mammas.

    Pay attention to your middle-school teachers.

    Quit sucking your thumb and get a job.

    Get out of your jammies and get a life.

    [email protected]

    • “… demonstrating their dismal awareness of anything other than the pablum served to them by their mammas.”

      Nah. They’re demonstrating the ignorance of a great many more people. This argument works and has worked for decades because most people in this country, including those who vote, don’t know anything about how the Senate works. It’s a doubled edged sword but people pick it up all the time.

      • You’re being played.
        “Vote for us, we need to take the Senate” is what your party tells you when they’re out of power to get you to vote for them even though they don’t do what you want
        “Vote for us, we need 60 votes” is what your party tells you when they’re IN power but still don’t do what you want

        Because of the power dynamics of the senate there’s not much chance of them getting called out on it, but if they did, there would be another excuse. Funding, etc. The fact is, both parties want things to stay exactly where they are.

        • 60 votes with solidarity in that voting block would equate to near total control of all agenda and all votes. Republicans held a majority of 51 for two years, and they didn’t have solidarity with some of the RINOs and Never Trumpers. Control was an illusion and nothing was going to move.

          However, McConnell still should have brought it out of committee (simple majority). He never did. Epic fail. At least the Dems bring up their doomed bills to get them on record. Sadly, they too often play the game better. If you know how to game the system and are able to get away with cheating periodically (or more often), you can rule the roost.

    • Yep. “It’s easier to fool people than it is for people to admit they’ve been fooled.” That’s my second favorite quote from Samuel Clemmons aka Mark Twain. My favorite we’re seeing played out today, “If voting made a difference they’d make it illegal” Isn’t that what they’re attempting with POTUS?

    • bringing it to a vote would have forced some people to go on record, though…something they always strive to avoid…

  6. This whole thing is hilarious to me.

    If the had let Scalise testify to the committee it would have gotten a few moment’s coverage at best.

    Now the story is that he was barred from testifying and that will get him a bunch more coverage where he can go around Congress and say what he wanted to say originally but to a much larger audience.

    • Yeah, the “resistance” party has found a new (new, lately?) way to be stupid.

      They keep making the other guys look good by comparison.

      Moar popcorn.

  7. Stand up Steve… telling the truth.

    Unfortunately, the GOP had two year to fulfill its (and Pres. Trump’s) promise of National Reciprocity. They failed and betrayed us… and instead we got a stink in the pink with the backdoor FixNICS. They dragged their heels, then buckled under the fevered ignorance and hysteria of Vegas and Parkland… instead of turning National Reciprocity into a viable answer and a part the solution to “gun violence.”

    The Democrat Party wants to make our Constitutionally protected guaranteed civil right of the 2A an optional, arbitrary right. They seem motivated and on message (however insane that message might be…). And the GOP had a chance to snuff out that nonsense, and end the debate of gun control forever. They seem hesitant, indifferent, and frankly, paralyzed and afraid.

    We will see how far they let themselves get pushed around (like this disgrace of Scalise not having a voice). This whole chapter has been a freak show….

    But, at least Scalise is telling the truth. Maybe it will be heard by some of his colleagues. Because he “was there,” and his voice should be at least as vital and valid as some babbling teen outrage fad.

    …actual Mort, from AZ

    • Mort,

      When we had control of both chambers …

      Not true: see above comments about the U.S. Senate’s rule which requires 60 votes to proceed to actually vote whether or not to pass a bill. (Yes, passing a bill actually requires two votes in sequence.)

      And, Republicans may still actually come through for us since the U.S. Senate did manage to install two conservative justices to the U.S. Supreme Court which seems poised to strike down a HUGE amount of gun control laws on the upcoming case of New York Rifle and Pistol Association vs. New York City.

    • Mort…”the 2A an optional, arbitrary right.” It already is. Nowhere in our country is the Second applied as it is written.

    • The problem is that defending 2A rights isn’t profitable politically. Convincing enough Democrat Senators to flip simply isn’t worth the effort for Republicans, especially since all they have to do to appease gun owners in their state is to pay enough lip service come election time. If you look at what major laws were actually passed since 2017, Trump and his butt-buddies in Congress were far more interested in making sure their billionaire friends and donors got their massive tax cuts at the expense of us average Americans. Do you honestly think that our safety and rights matter to them?

      For those of you living in People’s Republic states, unfortunately, politicians like Schumer or Pelosi or Feinstein are fixtures and won’t realistically be voted out. For those living in states or districts with Republican Congressmen and Senators, those who only claim to care about the Second Amendment, primary them out in favor of someone who’d actually back up their promises.

      • The truth is that those in power do not want every American to have and carry a gun. They give lip service to the 2nd, but like Reagan, do not want the unwashed masses to have them.

  8. Liberal democrats simply believe you SHOULD NOT resist your rapists or murderers. And sadly there are many republicans who believe this as well.

  9. Steve Scalise only mentioned the one in his testimony but there was another study that came out of UC Davis and JHU/Bloomberg that looked at Indiana and Tennessee after they repealed their comprehensive background check laws. That study also found no change to firearm homicide and suicide rates.

    • I wish I could vote for him somewhere. Maybe I’ll donate. But I hate that, just like NRA, politicians always think they should ask for more money twice a week if you ever once donate. Shit, Ted Cruz sent urgent requests for more money when he was 2 weeks into a 6 year term.

  10. 18-280



    18-280 IS COMING FOR ALL THE ANTIS!!!!!!!


    Also bravo to Mr. Scalise!!!

  11. The real reason that Democrats did not allow U.S. Congressman Scalise to testify is because he is from a “backwards” district and therefore has nowhere near the command of the subject as the “enlightened” Congressmen/women from our major urban centers.

  12. So how many have noticed that on the subject of; “In the Democrats’ anti-gun playbook, actual “gun violence” victims and survivors have particular moral authority to talk about firearms”, how many of you out there have noticed that no Democrat ever said that? All they do is ACT LIKE that is the case, when of course it is not.
    As this event should make crystal clear, the ones they actually grant moral authority to speak is only those who will say whatever they are told that supports the propaganda. But it is no different than any other tyranny throughout human history.
    Always the lies must remain unopposed, because in the light of truth, lies simply evaporate. The authorities have sunk years of intense effort into these lies. The last thing they can afford is someone speaking the truth. Some of the sleeping sheep might wake up and notice.

  13. The Senate had the chance to pass it, but McConnell wouldn’t bring it to a Vote so what does that tell you about another life long leach that claims to be for the people…..My Ass they are all in it for themselves.

  14. Everyone here knows Who,What and Where the problem lies. We speak of it each time our Rights are Trampled. We continue to complain while slowly backing closer to the Precipice of Tyranny. Words mean nothing to a class of people who do not fear words. Our Fore Fathers learned this after many years of trying to negotiate with the Crown for their Rights. It seems that We have turned the act of negotiating over to a group of people who care more for their power than Preserving Our Rights. Each of us should ask ourselves What will it take before enough is enough. That was what Our Fore Father had to do and did. There comes a time when words ring hollow and there is nothing left but action. If not us who…If not now when. Each must answer for themselves…All must decide. Keep Your Powder Dry.

    • don’t really think that scares them…even if it makes you feel better…they plan to nibble us to death…

  15. Of course they wouldn’t let him speak.

    Can’t have a show trial if the bad guy won’t say the right lines.

Comments are closed.