WASHINGTON (AP) — Wounded former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was appearing as an unscheduled witness Wednesday at the year's first congressional hearing on curbing gun violence, adding drama to a session that was already slated to hear from a top official of the National Rifle Association.
Giffords, an Arizona Democrat who suffered a severe head wound in a 2011 Tucson shooting spree that killed six people, was not expected to take questions, according to a Senate aide who revealed the details only on condition of anonymity because they had not been announced.
The dramatic juxtaposition between the NRA and a famous shooting victim set the stage for the hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose own members are divided in a microcosm of the debate that gun limits will face on their way through Congress. The hearing is a response to the Dec. 14 shooting rampage that killed 20 first-graders and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and transformed gun control into a top-tier issue in the capital.
"The time has come to change course," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., one of Congress' leading gun-control advocates, said Tuesday. "And the time has come to make people safe."
Feinstein, a Judiciary Committee member, has already introduced her own legislation banning assault weapons and magazines of more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he would listen to proposals and agreed that reviewing the issue was timely.
"But I'm a strong supporter of the Second Amendment," he said Tuesday, citing the constitutional provision that describes the right to bear arms, "and I don't intend to change."
The chairman of the panel, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said little Tuesday about the direction his committee's legislation might take. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., indicated that whatever the committee produced wouldn't necessarily be the final product, saying the package would be debated by the full Senate and senators would be allowed to propose "whatever amendments they want that deal with this issue."
Despite the horrific Newtown slayings, it remains unclear whether those advocating limits on gun availability will be able to overcome resistance by the NRA and lawmakers from states where gun ownership abounds. Question marks include not just many Republicans but also Democratic senators facing re-election in red-leaning states in 2014. They include Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
Knowing that television cameras would beam images of the hearing nationally, both sides were drumming up supporters to attend Wednesday's session.
A page on an NRA-related website urged backers to arrive two hours early to get seats, bring no signs and dress appropriately. The liberal BoldProgressives.org urged its members to attend, saying the NRA "will try to pack the room with their supporters to deceive Congress into believing they are mainstream."
Earlier this month, President Barack Obama proposed a package that includes banning assault weapons, requiring background checks on all firearms purchases and limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
Giffords underwent a lengthy rehabilitation process and has regained some ability to speak, but has retired from Congress. A gun owner, she and her husband Mark Kelly, a retired astronaut, have formed a political action committee called Americans for Responsible Solutions to back lawmakers who support tighter gun restrictions.
In testimony prepared for the hearing but released Tuesday, Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, said such steps had failed in the past. He instead voiced support for better enforcement of existing laws, beefing up school security and strengthening the government's ability to keep guns from mentally unstable people.
The massacre in Newtown has also set off a national discussion about mental health care, with everyone from law enforcement leaders to the gun industry urging policymakers to focus on the issue as a way to help prevent similar mass shootings. The issue of mental health has arisen in four recent mass shootings, including Sandy Hook, the Tucson shooting, the incident in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater last year and Virginia Tech in 2007.
"Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals," LaPierre said in his statement. "Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families."
While not yielding on specifics, much of LaPierre's statement had a milder tone than other remarks the NRA has made since Newtown.
That includes an NRA television ad calling Obama an "elitist hypocrite" for voicing doubts about having armed school guards while his own children are protected that way at their school. While Obama's children have Secret Service protection, officials at their school have said its own guards don't carry guns.
Feinstein said Tuesday that she will hold her own hearing on gun control because she was unhappy that three of the five witnesses testifying Wednesday are "skewed against us."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday he would wait to see what legislation Democrats produce. Republican leaders of the GOP-run House have expressed similar sentiments.

Comments (17)
Add comment"And the time has come to make people safe"
"And the time has come to make people safe"
Nancy, what about the un-born? What rights do they have? How many innocent little ones have been aborted in the last 24 hours?
distractibility or inattentiveness?
A child with AD/HD [ A.D.D. OR ADHD ] is usually described as having a short attention span and as being distractible. In actuality, distractibility and inattentiveness are not synonymous. Distractibility refers to the short attention span and the ease with which some children can be pulled off-task. Attention, on the other hand, is a process that has different parts. We focus (pick something on which to pay attention), we select (pick something that needs attention at that moment) and we sustain (pay attention for as long as is needed). We also resist (avoid things that remove our attention from where it needs to be), and we shift (move our attention to something else when needed).
When we refer to someone as distractible, we are saying that a part of that person's attention process is disrupted. Children with AD/HD [ A.D.D. OR ADHD ] can have difficulty with one or all parts of the attention process. Some children may have difficulty concentrating on tasks (particularly on tasks that are routine or boring). Others may have trouble knowing where to start a task. Still others may get lost in the directions along the way. A careful observer can watch and see where the attention process breaks down for a particular child.
Speaking for America
I'd like a gun debate without a lot of chest-thumping posturing and finger-pointing.
I get it, that some people are concerned about a slippery slope, but at the same time it's just gotten too easy to get shot. Something, I propose, has got to give.
I suggest the give would be the romantic vision which seems to be central to the "leave it as it is" defense, while at the same time we (smelly) hippies need to acknowledge the world is not without its dangers.
So whaddaya' say? Strict, in-depth background checks? Close the cash-and-carry loopholes? Is that not a reasonable start?
Exactly.
I agree wholeheartedly. Will the two extremes of this issue be able to find a common-ground? If only those in the middle of this issue could gather together and come up with a common-sense plan to be implemented.
Current laws have not addressed some major issues. Someone may go to a store and get rejected by a background check but nothing stops them from picking up a paper, flipping over to the classifieds, and calling up one of the numbers for a private individual and buying a gun from them without a background check performed.
Before someone accuses me as pushing for banning guns you should know this. I own guns. I'm not in love with them but I do own them because they can serve a purpose. My guns are locked up. With the exception of my wife, no one else has access to them. This is especially true for my kids. They do not need access to them and that is how it will remain.
People are citing the Connecticut shooting and saying we need to do this or that while ignoring the root cause for how that happened. Those guns did not belong to the shooter, they were his mother's. Part of being a responsible gun owner is securely storing them. All the background checks in the world won't stop bad people from getting guns if we don't first lock up ours to prevent unauthorized access.
quantify
"I get it, that some people are concerned about a slippery slope, but at the same time it's just gotten too easy to get shot"
Can you quantify that statement? I ask because I keep reading that gun violence has continued to drop since the 80s. That seem like a direct contradiction to your statement that it is easier to get shot.
Hi bama
You are correct that violent crime numbers have dropped since the 80s. Gun crime has also dropped but not as dramatically. One explanation is the aging of the baby boomers, meaning those who commit most of those crimes, young men, are decreasing as a percentage of the total population. Another interesting theory I just read was that there is a strong correlation between this decrease in crime and the lessening of lead in the atmosphere with the phase-out of leaded gasoline in the 80s. One study (Carpenter, D.O. and R. Nevin, 2010. "Environmental Causes of Violence." Physiology and Behavior 99:260-68) estimated that as much as half of the drop in crime may be explained that way. So this whole discussion about reducing gun crime could move away from passing laws banning certain weapons and toward regulating pesticides and mercury levels. I'm open to anything that works.
it's amazing ....
when you give liberals facts that support your stance but then they want to discredit it and show why they believe its wrong but if you were to do that to them, then we are calling them names and being immature. By all means keep going lachowsj onto pesticides and mercury levels maybe you'll get something to go your way there.
Not so amazing
truthbetold, I have already said in these discussions that a ban on assault weapons is not the whole answer, that I am not as knowledgeable about different weapons as you and some others here, and that I am open to any discussions that come from a respectful place. I have said that I believe that no matter what our political beliefs we are all interested in keeping everyone safe. I'm trying to respect where you're coming from. I am not your enemy.
you know..
for those that haven't seen our arguments before, you have never agreed about not banning assault rifles. In fact you have said you support that and Obama's plan. My view has never strayed and stayed the same. I'm not a fan of the new type of liberals that want to entrust the government to regulate us in ways that affect our constitutional rights. I'm also not on here to win likes because lord knows you liberals are all over this site when it comes to speaking of our God and what you believe is right in the eyes of the governments regulations or economical status and how the changes we've made are all conservatives fault. No I'm not going down that but you sir are that of a hypocrite when you insult my intelligence thinking you can talk us down by putting it intellectually sound as to a manner of confusion. I'm not amused or confused but just as insulted as you are (or claim to be). I on the other hand am very blunt with my opinions (if you haven't noticed) and if you disagree that’s fine but give me the respect to disagree with your opinion and not try to act like it's a fact by defending it with polls or sites that give inaccurate information (not saying you've done all of that but others have). I'm not an enemy kind of guy at all. This is teh internet and nothing of this is that personal to me. I like the debates but some on here can't really debate and it's funny to me. If you think I've made you an enemy then you take this way to seriously, almost as much as Quill ;)
Hey Truth
I'll use a line on you that my wife sometimes feels the need to use on me. "You sound angry." You are right that I have not changed my position on supporting a ban on assault rifles. However, I have not said I would never change my mind under any circumstance. You on the other hand believe that if you give ground on this issue, no matter what facts or polls or circumstances are presented, that you are giving up your most precious freedom. I don't fully understand that position but you are entitled to it. When my wife says, "You sound angry," I try to step back, decide if I really am angry, and if so where that anger is coming from. In my case it is usually a base fear, maybe of loss of respect or authority or control. I then try to decide if the fear is real and if it is worth the energy I am putting there. These are serious times and can raise serious fears and emotions. I'll accept that you are "not an enemy kind of guy at all."