[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 154 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9632-S9633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)

                              DC GUN LAWS

 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose H.R. 6842. This 
bill would be a disastrous blow to gun safety in the District of 
Columbia. For almost three decades, the District's handgun and assault 
weapon ban has helped to reduce the risk of deadly gun violence. City 
residents and public officials overwhelmingly supported the ban, and 
courts have upheld it--until the Supreme Court's recent misguided 
decision in the Heller case in June. Now, we are facing an orchestrated 
assault that jeopardizes public safety. It is hard to understand how 
the increased availability of handguns and assault weapons in our 
Nation's Capital will make residents and visitors safer.
  Introducing more guns onto the streets and into the community will 
only increase the number of violent deaths in DC, including homicides, 
suicides, and accidental shootings. The increased availability of 
firearms will

[[Page S9633]]

make it more likely that deadly violence will erupt in our public 
buildings, offices, and public spaces.
  This bill will have dangerous consequences for residents and visitors 
alike. It removes criminal penalties for possession of unregistered 
firearms. It legalizes the sale of assault weapons in the District. It 
allows handguns and assault weapons to be kept legally in the city's 
homes and workplaces. It hobbles the authority of the Mayor and the 
City Council to deal with gun violence. Absurdly, this bill even 
prevents the City Council from enacting any laws that ``discourage'' 
gun ownership or require safe storage of firearms.
  As Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has emphasized, this bill sets 
no age limit for possession of guns, including military-style weapons. 
It permits a person who is voluntarily committed to a mental 
institution to own a gun the day after the person is released. It 
prevents gun registration, even for the purpose of letting police know 
who has guns and tracing guns used in crimes. It prevents the DC 
government from adopting any regulations on guns, leaving only a bare 
Federal statute that would leave DC with one of the most permissive gun 
laws in the Nation.
  This bill is a frontal assault on the well-established principle of 
home rule. It is an insult to the 580,000 citizens of the District of 
Columbia. It tramples on the rights of its elected leaders and local 
residents to determine for themselves the policies that govern their 
homes, streets, neighborhoods, and workplaces. Congress wouldn't dare 
do this to any State, and it shouldn't do it to the District of 
Columbia.
  Congress has consistently opposed giving the residents of the 
District the full voting representation in Congress they deserve. Many 
of our colleagues have frequently attempted to interfere with local 
policymaking and spending decisions. This bill is a blatant 
interference with DC law enforcement by denying the right of the City 
Council to regulate firearms and firearm ownership.
  I commend Senator Feinstein and Senator Lautenberg for their 
leadership in opposing this shameful legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this reckless, special-interest bill that will 
endanger the safety of the District of Columbia's residents and 
visitors.
  The solution to DC's gun crime problem lies in strengthening the 
Nation's lax gun laws, not weakening those in the District. The tragic 
and graphic stories of gun violence that capture front-page headlines 
in the District show that current gun-safety laws need to be 
strengthened, not abolished. I have long been committed to reasonable 
gun control laws, and I am concerned that the Supreme Court's decision 
on the DC gun ban opens a Pandora's box. Much of the progress we have 
made in making Americans safer by placing reasonable restrictions on 
the possession of firearms is now in doubt. It is a bitter irony that 
this gross setback comes in the name of a right to self-defense, and I 
urge the Senate to oppose it.

                          ____________________