[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 89 (Tuesday, June 17, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1285-E1286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         INTRODUCTION OF THE NATIONWIDE GUN BUYBACK ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 17, 2003

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am encouraged to introduce the 
Nationwide Gun Buyback Act of 2003, NGBA, by the actions of the 
District of Columbia residents on Father's Day last Sunday. Citizens 
who had lost relatives and representatives of 20 advocacy and victim-
support groups gathered at Freedom

[[Page E1286]]

Plaza, a stone's throw from the White House, to declare their own 
moratorium on murder for the Father's Day weekend.
  Not only did their moratorium have important symbolic value; in fact 
there was only one murder last weekend. Of primary importance was the 
fact that the moratorium was symbolic and entirely citizen initiated. 
Residents themselves must take responsibility for crime and not regard 
criminal activity as a matter for the police alone. I am pleased that 
the D.C. Council and the Mayor responded with a resolution supporting 
the moratorium, but the event got its importance from its origin with 
residents. The moratorium was initiated by Kenneth E. Burnes whose son 
was murdered in his U Street store and became one of 233 residents 
killed in 2001. This year's homicide rate is 9 percent ahead of last 
year's rate. Almost all of the killings here and elsewhere are 
committed by handguns.
  The bill, however, does not conflict with Member's positions on the 
controversial issue of gun control. The bill would simply allow people 
who desire to get guns out of their homes to do so without incurring 
criminal penalties for possession. Families, and especially mothers, 
have feared guns in their homes, but often do not know how to get rid 
of them. In most jurisdictions, a grandmother petrified that there is a 
gun in the house for example, or her grandson, who may possess the 
illegal weapons cannot turn it in without subjecting herself or her 
grandson to prosecution. This is reason enough for gun buyback efforts.
  Like tax amnesty, gun amnesty puts a premium on the ultimate goal. 
When the goal is taxes, the government puts a premium on getting the 
amount owned. When the goal is guns, the premium is on getting deadly 
weapons off the streets and out of people's homes. This bill is 
entirely voluntary and does not compel anyone to give up a handgun, 
even one that is illegally held.
  This bill would provide Federal funds to local jurisdictions to 
engage in gun buyback programs like the successful programs conducted 
by the District of Columbia a few years ago. Under the bill, funds 
would be distributed through the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, HUD. After evaluation of proposals, added weight would be 
given to jurisdictions with the greatest incidence of gun violence. The 
NGBA would require that a jurisdiction certify that it is capable of 
destroying the guns within 30 days, that it can conduct the program 
safely, and that an amnesty appropriate for the jurisdiction will be 
offered. Not only individuals, but groups such as gangs could take 
advantage of the buyback provisions to encourage street gangs to disarm 
themselves.
  This bill is necessary because, despite the extraordinary 
demonstrated success of the gun buyback program in the District, local 
jurisdictions have no readily available funds for similar programs. The 
District was forced to find money on an ad hoc basis and ran out of 
funds despite residents who still desired to turn in guns. Initially, 
the District conducted a pilot program using funds from HUD. Confronted 
with long lines of residents, the Police Department then took the 
program citywide, using drug asset forfeiture funds. Even so, after 
using $290,000, the city ran out of funds, but not of guns, that could 
have been collected. The guns were a ``good buy'' but hard-pressed 
jurisdictions, especially big cities, should not have to rob Peter to 
pay Paul when it comes to public safety. The Federal Government can 
play a unique and noncontroversial role in reducing gun violence by 
providing the small amount authorized by my bill, $50 million, to 
encourage buyback efforts where a local jurisdiction believes they can 
be helpful.
  The Nation's Capital has successfully demonstrated a faster and 
easier way to put guns under the control of law enforcement where 
criminals cannot use them and children and adults cannot misuse them. 
Gun buyback efforts are not new, but the recent, dramatic impact of the 
District's program has special bi-partisan and natural appeal today 
because the program is voluntary and requires no change in local or 
Federal gun laws. A gun buyback bill is certainly no substitute for gun 
safety legislation, but my bill is based on demonstrated and successful 
experience in a number of cities that have achieved voluntary 
compliance by citizens with local laws.
  The extraordinary success of the buyback programs in the District and 
around the country has shown that these programs should now be readily 
available to jurisdictions that desire to use them. In a market 
economy, efforts to buy back guns have special appeal. We may disagree 
on the various approaches as to gun violence, but Democrats and 
Republicans alike can agree to this sensible approach.
  I urge my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

                          ____________________