[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 10, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1040
 
                              GUN CONTROL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Chapman). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] is 
recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, this is the House of 
Representatives, so I want to talk a little bit about a meeting I have 
had with some of the people I represent yesterday. This is a meeting in 
Rock Springs, WY. We talked about gun control.
  Let me tell the Members a little bit about the folks who came. These 
are middle American folks. This was a meeting that took place at 8:30 
in the morning, and many of these folks had come in from a shift at the 
coal mine, had come in from mining the trona patch in Rock Springs, WY. 
These are folks who work every day, support their families. It included 
people who are retired from the Game and Fish Commission, people who 
have an interest in gun control but interestingly enough, the topic got 
much broader than gun control. It had to do with personal choices, it 
had to do with personal freedom, it had to do with States rights.
  It is interesting that the proponents of the gun control bill last 
week talked a great deal about special interests. Let me tell the 
Members, if this is a special interest, then everything we talk about 
representing people in our districts are special interests.
  They had a special interest. They had a special interest in having 
personal freedom, they had a special interest in having States rights, 
they had a special interest in deciding the things that they want to do 
for themselves.
  The theme of the meeting and the purpose of the meeting was gun 
control. Let me tell the Members that it expanded far beyond that. I am 
pleased that it did, because there is more to the issue than gun 
control specifically.
  They talked about the impact on the second amendment of the 
Constitution. They talked about the impact or lack of impact on crime. 
They talked about the uncertainty of which weapons are covered under 
this bill. They talked about States rights and how much intrusion we 
have in the operations of our States from the Federal Government. They 
talked about personal rights and the infringement there.
  Let me mention a couple of those. The Constitution, people feel 
strongly about the second amendment to the Constitution, about all of 
the Constitution, about the fact that the Constitution was designed to 
give only those powers to the Federal Government that are specifically 
given; that the other powers are vested in the people. It is pretty 
simple, but very important.
  They talked about the fact that we ought to have some recourse to 
talk about whether or not the Constitution has been infringed. They 
talked about constitutional amendments. They talked about legal 
recourse and legal remedies, to say, ``Look, this is impeding and 
impinging upon our constitutional rights.''
  They talked, too, about the fact that this is feel-good talk, that 
this kind of arms control, this kind of gun control, will not have any 
impact at all on crime. Several officers were there. Interestingly, 
enough, they said, ``You know, there are many reasons for people to 
have guns. Hunting is only one of them. As officers, we react to things 
that have already happened. People need an opportunity to defend 
themselves. That is what initially happens.''
  They talked, too, about the uncertainty of the bill in terms of the 
weapons that were covered. One of the gentlemen there fires 
competitively at the Camp Perry competitive shooting event each year. 
One of the weapons that he has used is barred under this bill, that is 
used in the Camp Perry Army-sponsored shooting competition. I thought 
that was interesting.

  We also talked about the response from the Tobacco and Firearms 
department, which said that there literally could be hundreds of 
weapons that fall in the same characteristic. These folks are very much 
concerned about that.
  They were concerned about States rights. I think one of the most 
obvious ones you might notice would be, people from New York have 
particular problems. People in Rock Springs, WY, have a different set 
of problems.
  The idea that we have a ``one fits all'' kind of a Federal law that 
covers everything in the whole country, regardless of their 
circumstances, is beginning to be so repetitive, appears so often. 
People are very, very offended by this idea, whether it be unfunded 
mandates, whether it be gun control, whether it be health care, whether 
it be speed limits imposed by the Federal Government.
  There ought to be some States rights, more acknowledgment of the 
differences we have in this country. They talked a lot about that.
  Finally, they talked maybe about the most important aspects of what 
we are doing is having too much Federal Government in your face, too 
much Federal Government telling us as individuals, with our rights as 
individuals and with the responsibilities that go with rights, the 
freedom to choose their own behavior, the freedom to be responsible for 
themselves.
  I was impressed. I was impressed by, No. 1, the fact that twice as 
many people came to this meeting as I had imagined would come. I was 
impressed by the fact that even though they were there specifically on 
gun control, they talked about the ramifications that are much broader: 
personal rights, States rights, the ineffectiveness of it.
  These were thoughtful people. This is the House of Representatives. 
It is our task here to represent our people. I am pleased to represent 
this group, not a special interest, but a personal interest, an 
interest in something that affects their lives, an interest in 
something that they think affects the future of this country in terms 
of Federal intervention into their rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for citizens of this country to 
deal with these issues on a local level, to talk about these issues, to 
read about these issues, to express their concern about issues. The 
strength of this country is individual participation. This is a 
government of the people and this is how you do it. This is how you do 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, I was pleased and impressed, and of course, I agree, I 
agree that the essence of personal freedom is to have people to have 
choices and to have the responsibility to stand by those choices.

                          ____________________