[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 26, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E456]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONGRESS MUST ACT CAREFULLY WHEN REGULATING SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

                                 ______


                          HON. STEVE GUNDERSON

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, March 26, 1996

  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, the debate about guns is as old as these 
United States of America. The American Revolution was about tyranny of 
the few over the many; and the power to control the masses included the 
ability to control firearms. As a result, our Founding Fathers believed 
it essential to guarantee the right to bear arms as a way to prevent 
history from repeating itself.
  Throughout the ensuing 220 years, the second amendment has served us 
well--for food, for defense, and for sport. Guns were necessary to 
secure food and for protection as families settled our country during 
the early years of the country. Gun skills were vital to life then, 
remained important through two World Wars, and are still important 
today, especially to those outdoors enthusiasts in Wisconsin. There are 
many gun clubs in western Wisconsin, where young and old alike practice 
against targets and clay pigeons. Our hunters enjoy the sport and 
challenge of trying to bag a buck or a bird. We must ensure that their 
enjoyment can continue.
  Yet everyone should recognize that the second amendment right to bear 
arms is not absolute. Congress has the ability to regulate the use of 
firearms where necessary. For example, over 60 years ago, Congress 
prohibited automatic weapons--machine guns--because allowing the sale 
of these weapons was contrary to the public interest. Today, we need to 
confront another growing problem--incidences of random gun violence by 
individuals and excessive drug-induced violence. This violence often 
pits our law enforcement personnel against criminals with greater 
firepower.
  I believe that some firarms can be regulated by Congress without 
violating our second amendment rights. Just as a person cannot abuse 
his free speech rights by yelling fire in a crowded theater, there are 
reasonable limits that Congress may need to place on certain firearms. 
The issues are what firearms Congress regulates and how the regulation 
is conducted.
  Today, we confront that issue as the House of Representatives again 
considers the assault weapons ban. Once again, both supporters and 
opponents have made their views known with emotional fervor. Both sides 
approach this debate with important and valid concerns. To many, the 
issue is the basic guaranty to bear arms provided in the second 
amendment to the Constitution. To others, the issue is a question of 
how to protect against mass killings all over the country, in both 
urban and rural areas.
  When the House considered the assault ban in 1994, I noted that the 
real issue was not whether Congress could ban a short, designated list 
of firearms. Rather, the issue was whether, in addition to a short 
list, the people wanted to entrust the Federal bureaucracy with the 
power to decide which firearms were copies or duplicates of the 
firearms banned in the law or that met the additional banned firearm 
criteria. Supporters claimed that language prohibiting copies or 
duplicates is necessary to be effective and that the additional banned 
modifications are narrowly tailored. Opponents disagreed, noting that 
the effect would likely be to ban dozens of weapons. By a narrow vote 
of 216 to 214, the House decided that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms [BATF] should have that power.
  In my opinion, the existing assault weapons law leaves excessive 
discretion to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to determine 
when modified firearms should be banned. I believe then, as I believe 
now, that providing such wide latitude is wrong and that Congress must 
be more specific if it is to act at all.
  As a result, I will vote to repeal the assault weapons ban. I 
sincerely believe that Congress must act very carefully when curtailing 
constitutionally protected rights, and it must fully disclose the 
effects of the legislation it passes to regulate those rights. The 
House did neither when it passed the assault weapons ban in 1994.

                          ____________________