'We're a Constitutional Carry State' : Senator Hawley Questions Judicial Nominees | 02.05.26

[00:00:00] Thank you very much. Uh thank you to all [00:00:02] of the nominees for being here. [00:00:03] Congratulations to each of you. It's [00:00:04] great to see you. Uh Mr. Cicada, let me [00:00:06] just start with you if I could. Let's [00:00:07] start with the Second Amendment. [00:00:09] Missouri, I think that we've got to be [00:00:11] the strongest protector of the Second [00:00:13] Amendment anywhere in the country. Uh [00:00:15] we've got we're a constitutional carry [00:00:17] state. We have no state level permit [00:00:19] requirements for concealed carry. Um, [00:00:21] our constitution, our state constitution [00:00:24] inscribes the right to keep and bear [00:00:27] arms and designates it unalienable in [00:00:29] our state constitution. It subjects any [00:00:31] restriction on that right under our [00:00:33] state constitution to strict scrutiny. [00:00:35] So, we're very, very serious about it. [00:00:37] And the state has repeatedly, repeatedly [00:00:39] signaled, and we're talking now about [00:00:40] voters who have adopted this. This isn't [00:00:42] just the state legislature. These are [00:00:43] our voters who have put this into our [00:00:45] state constitution. We've repeatedly [00:00:47] said we don't want the federal [00:00:48] government encroaching on our right to [00:00:50] keep and bear arms in the state of [00:00:51] Missouri. The last administration, [00:00:53] however, did this repeatedly repeatedly. [00:00:56] Back in 2022, the Biden DOJ actually [00:01:00] asked local sheriffs across Missouri for [00:01:02] records of concealed carry permit [00:01:04] holders, which state law explicitly [00:01:07] forbids the sheriffs to turn over. And [00:01:08] so, you can imagine the conflict there. [00:01:10] I mean, here you've got DOJ saying, [00:01:11] "Give us your records." And they're [00:01:13] saying, "Well, the state law forbids it. [00:01:15] criminalizes it. You're you're asking me [00:01:17] to turn over something that's illegal [00:01:18] under state law. And the bigger question [00:01:19] is why do you need records list of [00:01:22] concealed permit holders in the state of [00:01:24] Missouri? Why would the federal [00:01:26] government need to have this? They asked [00:01:27] for it from multiple counties. They [00:01:29] also, as you know, pursued the zero [00:01:31] tolerance revocation policy, the [00:01:32] expanded frame or receiver rule, all [00:01:35] things that Missouri and Missurrians [00:01:37] have viewed as massive overreach onto [00:01:39] our Second Amendment rights. Here's my [00:01:40] question for you. Can you commit that [00:01:42] under your leadership ATF will go in a [00:01:45] different direction than the last [00:01:46] administration that you'll focus your [00:01:47] law enforcement resources [00:01:49] on criminals as opposed to law-abiding [00:01:53] citizens who have rights under both the [00:01:56] federal and state constitutions? What's [00:01:57] your answer? [00:01:58] >> Good morning, Senator. Uh thank you for [00:02:00] your question. Uh I can assure you uh [00:02:02] with absolute uh certainty that ATF, [00:02:05] first of all, under my watch as a deputy [00:02:08] director since April of last year has [00:02:10] 1,000% been focused on holding people [00:02:12] accountable who've committed violent [00:02:14] crimes. Uh we're not here uh trying to [00:02:17] burden unnecessarily the American [00:02:19] citizen who has the complete right to [00:02:21] exercise their Second Amendment right uh [00:02:23] to bear arms and uh we will not be doing [00:02:26] that in the future if I am so confirmed. [00:02:28] >> You've got 20 years of experience over [00:02:30] that. I think at the ATF and and then a [00:02:33] lot of a lot of experience in anti-gang [00:02:35] enforcement with NYPD. [00:02:37] Just give us a sense of how you'll bring [00:02:39] that experience to bear to ensure that [00:02:41] the operational resources should you be [00:02:43] confirmed the operational resources of [00:02:45] the agency will be prioritized towards [00:02:47] dismantling violent criminal networks, [00:02:49] illegal firearm trafficking networks and [00:02:52] the like. How are you going to ensure [00:02:53] that this is the priority? not querying [00:02:56] the lists of permit holders in my state [00:02:59] for example. [00:03:00] >> Yes sir. So uh first off uh unlike some [00:03:03] uh prior ATF directors uh I will still [00:03:06] be uh a sworn law enforcement officer if [00:03:08] I am confirmed. Uh I've done this job uh [00:03:11] from the ground level uh police officer [00:03:13] learning to be an investigator, a task [00:03:15] force officer with ATF. I have 34 years [00:03:17] of experience of not telling people to [00:03:20] go out and make cases. I made the cases [00:03:22] myself. So I know what it takes. I know [00:03:25] uh that we can't do it alone because [00:03:26] we're a small agency. Uh I've worked [00:03:29] with practically every uh ATF agent [00:03:32] that's actually out here making cases. [00:03:33] We all know each other. And here at ATF, [00:03:36] we respect uh federal law enforcement [00:03:38] officers that do the job, not talk about [00:03:40] doing the job. Uh and uh those of us [00:03:43] that have done the job, uh we know to [00:03:45] stay focused on violent criminals and [00:03:46] that's what you pay us for and we will [00:03:48] continue to do that. [00:03:49] >> Terrific. Terrific. Thank you. I look [00:03:51] forward to working with you. Um let's [00:03:53] talk a little bit about uh nationwide [00:03:55] injunctions here with uh the judicial [00:03:58] nominees. By the way, congratulations uh [00:03:59] to all the judicial nominees. This is [00:04:01] going very well for you because there's [00:04:02] nobody in the room on the DAS. So that [00:04:04] that's when you know like this is things [00:04:06] are you're doing great. Um you're doing [00:04:07] great. Um let me let's just talk a [00:04:10] little bit about what you understand the [00:04:11] the scope of your equitable power to be [00:04:13] when it comes to granting injunctive [00:04:15] relief to nonparties who are in front of [00:04:18] you. This is something that we've seen [00:04:19] happen repeatedly over the years. We've [00:04:21] seen Republicanapp appointed judges do [00:04:22] it. We've seen Democratapp appointed [00:04:24] judges do it. Uh give me your [00:04:26] understanding of what it is, what kind [00:04:29] of of equitable injunctive relief you [00:04:31] can grant to a nonparty should you be [00:04:33] confirmed. Let's just go down the DAS [00:04:34] and we'll start with you, Mr. Davis. [00:04:37] >> Thank you, Senator. Uh the governing [00:04:39] case on this is the Supreme Court's [00:04:40] recent case in CASA uh which made clear [00:04:43] that district court's power is limited [00:04:45] to providing full relief to the parties [00:04:47] before it. So there's no ability to uh [00:04:49] simply provide relief to priorities that [00:04:51] are not before the court simply because [00:04:53] that is the policy view of the judge or [00:04:55] something needs to be limited to the [00:04:56] parties and uh full relief. [00:04:58] >> Good. Very good. Miss St. John, [00:05:00] >> I concur with Mr. Davis's response. [00:05:02] >> Okay, Mr. Shepard. [00:05:05] >> Uh Senator, I concur with my colleagues. [00:05:10] >> Mr. [00:05:10] Senator, under Trump Basa, uh, judges, [00:05:13] district judges lack authority, uh, to, [00:05:16] uh, provide relief for parties not [00:05:18] before them when they're using equitable [00:05:20] power. [00:05:21] >> Good. Okay. So, I'm glad we're clear on [00:05:23] it. Sounds like everybody agrees that [00:05:25] you you cannot bind as a district court [00:05:27] judge, it would be your understanding [00:05:29] that you're not able to use your [00:05:30] equitable powers, which injunctive [00:05:33] relief, of course, is inherently [00:05:34] equitable. You're not able to use those [00:05:36] powers to bind nonparties who are before [00:05:38] you. Is that we all agree on that? Yes, [00:05:40] Mr. Davis. [00:05:41] >> Yes, Senator. [00:05:42] >> Mr. Senator. [00:05:43] >> Yes, Mr. Sheepard. [00:05:44] >> Yes, Senator. [00:05:44] >> And Mr. Wolf. [00:05:45] >> Yes, Senator. [00:05:46] >> Okay. I've got some other questions that [00:05:47] I will give for you uh give to you for [00:05:49] the record. I just want to say in [00:05:50] closing with regard to you in [00:05:52] particular, Mr. Davis, and I'm sorry [00:05:53] that Senator Cruz is not here. Uh you've [00:05:56] served with Senator Cruz for a number of [00:05:57] years. And it's a little bit like that [00:05:58] episode of The Simpsons, I think, where [00:06:00] Lisa is in a science project and it's [00:06:02] like a great project and the judges look [00:06:04] at it like, "Yeah, very impressive." And [00:06:05] then they go and meet Homer and they [00:06:07] come back to Lisa and they say, "Having [00:06:09] met your father, we're awarding you [00:06:11] bonus points. Having served with your [00:06:14] former boss, I'm awarding you bonus [00:06:15] points. Mr. Davis, you're going to be [00:06:17] tremendous. You're all going to be [00:06:18] tremendous. Congratulations.