No, a Heritage Foundation Witness Did Not Lie at a 2019 Hearing

At a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing on gun violence yesterday, Representative Katie Porter (D., Calif.) went viral for her questioning of Heritage Foundation legal analyst Amy Swearer. The exchange became especially heated when Porter accused Swearer of lying under oath at a 2019 hearing on the same issue.

Three years ago, Representative Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) asked Swearer if “law-abiding people will be less safe to protect themselves” if Representative David Cicilline’s (D., R.I.) Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 were to become law.

“I think worse than that, sir. You will see millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens become felons overnight for nothing more than having scary-looking features on firearms,” Swearer responded.

The “scary features” Swearer mentioned that would be prohibited by the bill included barrel shrouds, which gun owners can use to prevent direct contact with a hot barrel, and collapsing or detachable stocks. If operators can attach these features to the gun, it qualifies as a semiautomatic firearm under the bill’s definition.

Yesterday, Porter asked Swearer if she had read the bill before coming to testify in 2019. When Swearer responded that she had, Porter pointed out that the bill “would allow the gun-owner to maintain possession of any semiautomatic assault weapon that was lawfully possessed before the bill becomes law.”

“I respect that we have different opinions on Rep. Cicilline’s assault weapons law,” Porter continued, “but we cannot have different facts.”

“Would you like the explanation of why I said that?” Swearer asked.

“No I will not. I have not yielded,” Porter answered.

Despite protests from Republican members of the committee, Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D., N.Y.) would not let Swearer address Porter’s accusations.

It is unhelpful for a congresswoman to accuse a witness of perjury, which is a rather serious crime, and not allow her to explain or defend herself.

Before Porter and Maloney cut her off, Swearer was just able to get in that, while the bill would have allowed a current owner to keep a semiautomatic gun, “any time that it’s transferred to anybody else, that now becomes an issue.”

Once the 2019 bill would go into effect, it would be “unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter,” its text reads. The only people who would be authorized to transfer or accept a transfer of a semiautomatic weapon essentially amounted to the military, law enforcement, and others involved in the administration of justice.

That bill never received a vote in either chamber, but, if it had become law, manufacturers and dealers who possess the over 133,000 federal firearms licenses would not be able to sell semiautomatic weapons anymore, illegalizing a trade in which they partake.

Nor would any of their customers, who number many more, be able to buy from them. Similarly, any law-abiding gun owners who gave their guns to family members would have been committing a felony.

Porter could have reasonably argued that Swearer exaggerated in her testimony by saying that these people would all “become felons overnight” and that such exaggeration could mislead the public, but accusing her of telling a complete lie under oath and committing a felony was inappropriate.

More than that, refusing to give Swearer a chance to respond was inexcusable. These hearings should be avenues by which our elected officials can inform the public and receive guidance from experts on important issues.

Now, they have turned into public showcases in which members of Congress attempt to get exposure on social media. Porter is far from the only politician who does this, but the behavior she displayed yesterday feeds into it.