[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 174 (Tuesday, November 15, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7593-H7604]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 822, NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY
RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2011
Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 463 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 463
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 822) to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide a national standard in accordance with which
nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the
State. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. NUGENT. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. NUGENT. I rise today in support of House Resolution 463, a rule
which provides for the consideration of an important piece of
legislation, H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of
2011.
I am proud to sponsor this rule, which provides for a structured
amendment process that will allow Members to have a thorough debate on
a wide variety of relevant and germane amendments to H.R. 822. We have
allowed 10 amendments to this bill--two Republican amendments and eight
Democratic amendments. Even on a contentious bill, a bill where it
would be easy to shut down the process, we not only are allowing
amendments, but of those that we will be debating on the floor, the
vast majority are Democratic amendments.
We did this not because it was the easy thing to do; we did it
because it was the right thing to do. It brought transparency to the
debate, and it is in keeping with the promises that the Republican
Party made to the American people for a freer, more open process.
Madam Speaker, until coming to this body 10 months ago, I had spent
my entire career as a cop, the last 10 years as sheriff of Hernando
County, Florida. During my 38 years in law enforcement, I found that
disarming honest citizens does nothing to reduce crime. If anything,
all it does is keep law-abiding citizens from being able to defend
themselves from violent criminals. Although I know this just from my
anecdotal experience, research backs up the claim.
For example, statistics indicate that citizens with carry permits are
more law-abiding than the general public. In my home State of Florida,
only 0.01 percent of nearly 1.2 million permits have been revoked
because of firearm crimes committed by permit holders. Additionally,
evidence indicates that crime declines in States with right-to-carry
laws. Since Florida became a right-to-carry State in 1987, Florida's
total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32 percent and 58
percent, respectively.
Because of this evidence, as well as my firsthand experience, I am a
proud defender of our Second Amendment right: ensuring ``the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' My history
as a law enforcement officer is also why I am a proud cosponsor of H.R.
822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.
H.R. 822 is a good, bipartisan bill, which enhances the
constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. Today, if I drive from
my home State of Florida into Georgia, Georgia recognizes that my
Florida driver's license is still valid even once I cross the State
line. H.R. 822 would require States to recognize each other's legally
issued concealed carry permits in the same
[[Page H7594]]
way. This legislation would take a comprehensive approach to helping
law-abiding citizens navigate the patchwork of State concealed carry
laws.
H.R. 822 does not--let me repeat--does not create a national
concealed carry permit system nor does it establish any nationalized
standard for a carry permit. H.R. 822 respects the States' abilities to
create their own gun usage laws as well as their own permitting
processes.
I am sure that we will hear arguments from my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle saying that H.R. 822 somehow makes it easier for
people to get a gun. Let me assure you that, again, this is not the
case. This legislation does not mandate that anyone suddenly be given a
gun nor does it relax any of a State's current permitting laws.
{time} 1240
During my nearly 40 years as a cop, I learned you just can't talk
about guns. When you're talking about gun crime, you need to look at
two distinct classes of guns: there are legal guns, and there are
illegal guns. I can tell you, as a cop, you don't worry about the legal
guns, the guns that people bought from an authorized source, that they
registered with the proper authorities, that they took the necessary
classes to learn how to use responsibly, and that they got their legal
concealed carry permit. In my experience, you worry about the illegal
guns, guns that somebody purposefully bought off the radar, either
because they aren't legally allowed to own a gun or because they're
going to use them for illegal purposes.
H.R. 822 doesn't get into that difference. What it does is ensures
that legal gun owners don't accidentally break a law simply because
they brought their fully permitted gun into another State. This
legislation gives peace of mind to Americans traveling across State
lines with a legally registered, concealed firearm, knowing that they
can practice their constitutional right to bear arms.
Again, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 822 and support its
passage.
With that, I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule,
``yes'' on the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me rise in opposition
to this restrictive rule, yet another restrictive rule. A lot of good
amendments were not made in order, and Members do not have the right to
offer amendments as they see fit during this debate. So I would urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule for that reason.
Madam Speaker, another week and another hot button social issue is
being brought to the floor by this extreme Republican leadership. A few
weeks ago, this House debated an abortion bill. That's months after we
considered legislation to defund Planned Parenthood. This Republican
leadership has tried to overturn the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water
Act this year, simply because their corporate constituency demands it.
And now we're turning to guns.
We're about to debate legislation that makes it easier to carry
concealed weapons in the United States. In fact, we're considering a
bill that will make it easier for convicted felons. Yet what do
Americans want most of all right now? Are they screaming for a lengthy
debate on abortion issues? Do they want us debating whether or not we
need to reaffirm our national motto? Are they clamoring for more
lenient gun laws?
No, Madam Speaker. The American people want jobs, J-O-B-S, jobs. But
my Republican friends are either too stubborn to listen or just don't
care enough to do something about the problem. Maybe they are just
covering their eyes and plugging their ears, hoping that this crisis
will magically disappear. That may work for a 6-year-old who's scared
of ghosts, but that's not how you govern a country.
Our unemployment rate is 9 percent. There are just under 14 million
unemployed Americans; millions more are earning less now than they were
before the economic crisis simply because they were forced with the
choice to take a lower-paying job or face unemployment. And what's the
Republican response to this problem? Not a jobs bill. In fact, the
Republicans haven't brought up a jobs bill once in this Congress. So
what, then, is their response to the jobs product? Surprise, surprise;
it's a gun bill.
Madam Speaker, what are we doing here? This is nuts. This isn't what
the American people sent us here to do. The irony is, many of the new
Republicans were allegedly sent here because of their opposition to
Federal encroachment on States' rights, but here we are debating a bill
that imposes the Federal role on States and undermines States' laws.
This is crazy in normal times, Madam Speaker. It's even crazier
today. And unlike the resolution reaffirming our national motto that we
debated a few weeks ago, this legislation will have real impacts on
people's lives. Madam Speaker, people will be hurt because of this
legislation. People, in fact, may die because of this bill. Don't take
my word for it; look at the facts. The bill obliterates State and local
eligibility rules for concealed weapons. It eliminates the State's
discretion to honor another State's permits. It requires States with
responsible restrictions--like my home State of Massachusetts--to allow
people with permits from States with lax laws to bring concealed
weapons into those States. Simply, it allows a person to bring a hidden
loaded gun into a State where, under today's laws, they are currently
ineligible to carry a concealed weapon.
Now there are reasons that States don't allow certain people to carry
concealed weapons, and each State is different. My home State of
Massachusetts doesn't issue concealed weapons permits to people who
have specific dangerous misdemeanor criminal convictions or alcohol
abuse problems, as well as people who have not completed firearm safety
training, people who do not have a good character, or those who are
under the age of 21.
I would like to insert into the Record a letter from the
Massachusetts Secretary of Public Safety and Security in opposition to
this bill.
But under this bill, a person who is convicted of spousal abuse in
one State could go to a second State for a concealed weapon permit.
When they get that permit, this bill allows that felon to bring their
weapon into Massachusetts even though they would not be eligible for a
concealed weapon permit under Massachusetts laws.
Now my friends on the other side of the aisle will say that this bill
is necessary, that more guns mean less crime, that people need to be
able to protect themselves. Well, that's not how our Nation's mayors
see it. Mayors Against Illegal Guns strongly oppose this bill because
it makes our cities less--not more--less safe. Mayors Against Illegal
Guns, founded by Boston Mayor Tom Menino and New York City Mayor
Michael Bloomberg, is made up of over 600 mayors of all political
stripes, united to respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners while
keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people.
And I'm especially grateful for the national leadership of Mayor Tom
Menino, who has long been a champion on this issue.
Not only do more than 600 mayors in this coalition oppose this bill,
but so do the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major
Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Foundation, the National Latino
Peace Officers Association, and the National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives. In fact, not only does the American Bar
Association oppose this bill, but so does the Association of
Prosecuting Attorneys.
I would like to insert into the Record the statement by the Mayors
Against Illegal Guns in opposition to H.R. 822.
Madam Speaker, Massachusetts is fortunate to have a number of anti-
gun violence leaders in the Commonwealth. In addition to Mayor Menino,
we are home to Stop Handgun Violence and, specifically, its founder
John Rosenthal. Gun safety laws work. They keep our citizens safe. In
fact, Massachusetts has the most comprehensive and effective gun
violence prevention laws and initiatives and the lowest firearm
[[Page H7595]]
fatality rate per 100,000 population of any urban industrial State and
second lowest overall behind Hawaii.
Every day more than 150 Americans are shot, and 83 die from gun
violence in the United States. A child under 20 years old dies from gun
violence every 3 hours, eight kids every single day. We could fill
Fenway Park three times over with the 110,000 kids under 20 years old
killed by guns in the past 30 years, and there is still no national law
requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales in the U.S. In
fact, in 33 States, there is no background check requirement or even
proof of ID for private gun sales. And today we're going to make it
even easier for these people to carry concealed weapons.
Massachusetts is the leader in gun violence prevention. We should be
working to prevent gun violence, not encouraging it with legislation
like this. Madam Speaker, Federal preemption of Massachusetts law will
only result in more innocent and largely preventible gun deaths in my
home State. The same holds true for nearly every State of the Union. In
fact, preempting State gun laws will make this entire country less
safe, and I cannot and I will not support legislation that makes our
neighborhoods and our cities and our States less safe.
Madam Speaker, let me conclude by saying, if we want to combat crime,
if we want to make our neighborhoods safer, I would urge my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle to join with us and bring the
President's jobs bill to the floor. Let's provide people with jobs and
economic security. Let's revitalize our neighborhoods that are
struggling now in poverty. That's what we should be doing, not debating
a bill to make it easier to carry concealed weapons. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on final passage
of the bill.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of
Public Safety and Security,
Boston, MA, November 10, 2011.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Boehner, and
Minority Leader Pelosi: I write to express my strong
opposition to H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry
Reciprocity Act, legislation that would force Massachusetts
to recognize concealed carry permits granted by other states,
even when those permit holders could not meet standards
required by Massachusetts law.
To protect vulnerable people, many states have set
standards for carrying handguns that include criteria beyond
an applicant's ability to pass a federal background check.
Right now, Massachusetts does not issue concealed carry
permits to people who have certain dangerous misdemeanor
criminal convictions or alcohol abuse problems, as well as
individuals who have not completed firearms safety training,
who do not have good character, or who are under the age of
21. H.R. 822, however, would permit citizens of states with
less strict laws to freely carry concealed weapons in our
state.
Varying state standards make it very difficult to know if a
carry permit from another state is valid. If a police officer
is unsure about whether a person is carrying a gun legally or
illegally, especially during a traffic stop, it may result in
a situation which could escalate dangerously.
National concealed carry reciprocity is opposed by more
than 600 mayors, including the mayors of Boston, Cambridge,
Springfield, and Worcester; local law enforcement, including
the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and the
Commissioner of the Boston Police Department; seven state
attorneys general, including Martha Coakley, Attorney General
of Massachusetts; the International Association of Chiefs of
Police; the Major Cities Chiefs Association, representing the
police chiefs of 56 major U.S. cities; the National Black
Police Association; the National Latino Peace Officers
Association; and the National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives.
I urge you to support Massachusetts' law enforcement
officials and the Commonwealth's right to make its own
decisions about how to protect public safety.
Sincerely,
Mary Elizabeth Heffernan,
Secretary.
Marian J. McGovern,
Colonel, Massachusetts State Police.
____
Mayors Against Illegal Guns
``NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2011,'' SPONSORED BY REP.
STEARNS (H.R. 822)
Bottom line: This bill would override the laws of almost
every state by forcing each to accept concealed handgun carry
permits from every other state, even if the permit holder
would not be allowed to carry or even possess a handgun in
the state where he or she is traveling. That policy would
undercut states' rights and create serious problems for law
enforcement. For those reasons, more than 600 mayors, major
national and local police organizations, and domestic
violence prevention organizations oppose national concealed
carry reciprocity and Congress rejected similar legislation
in 2009.
States Decide Criteria for Concealed Carry Permits Based on
Their Public Safety Needs: Almost all states issue licenses
to carry concealed firearms, but the criteria for such
permits differ widely, and each state makes its own decision
about whether to accept other states' permits based on their
respective public safety needs.
Licenses issued: 44 states require permits to carry
concealed handguns.
Illinois and Wisconsin do not allow concealed carrying.
Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming allow concealed
carrying without a permit.
Criteria Vary Based on Public Safety Needs: Each state with
permitting has its own eligibility standards. Those criteria
include:
Dangerous misdemeanants: At least 38 states, including
Indiana and Pennsylvania, prevent people from carrying
concealed weapons if they have certain dangerous misdemeanor
criminal convictions beyond domestic violence misdemeanors,
which prohibit gun possession under federal law.
Safety training: At least 35 states, including Nevada,
require the completion of a gun safety program, many of which
include live fire training, or other proof of competency
prior to the issuance of a carry permit.
Age restrictions: At least 36 states, including Colorado
and Missouri, prohibit individuals under the age of 21 from
obtaining concealed carry permits.
Law enforcement discretion: At least 24 states, including
Alabama, give permits based on law enforcement discretion.
Alcohol abuse: At least 29 states, including New Mexico and
South Carolina, prohibit alcohol abusers from obtaining a
concealed carry permit.
Good character: At least 14 states, including Maine,
require applicants to demonstrate good character to obtain a
concealed carry permit.
Good cause requirement: At least 12 states, including North
Dakota, require applicants to demonstrate that he or she has
``good cause'' for obtaining a concealed carry permit.
Short permit renewal period: At least 36 states, including
Arkansas, require permit holders to renew their permit at
least every five years.
Residents: At least 27 states require applicants to be
residents of the state or have some other close tie to the
state.
States Decide Whether to Offer Reciprocity: Each state has
its own laws on what other states' permits to accept, if any.
30 states recognize permits only from selected states--
typically from states with equivalent or higher standards;
and
9 states do not recognize any out-of-state permits.
Of the other 11 states, 7 states allow carrying by all out-
of-state permit holders, 3 states allow carrying by non-
residents without a permit, and Illinois does not currently
allow any form of concealed carrying.
What Would H.R. 822 Do? H.R. 822 would require each state
to accept concealed carry permits from every other state,
usurping each state's right to set its own public safety
laws. Those eligible include anyone who holds a concealed
carry permit issued by any state and except for those barred
under federal law.
Narrow exceptions to reciprocity:
A person cannot obtain a permit from a state that grants
permits to non-residents and then use that permit to carry in
their own state of residence. However, under H.R. 822, a
person can obtain a non-resident permit and use it to carry
in 47 other states.
They must carry a government-issued photo ID and their
state license.
How Would H.R. 822 Endanger Law Enforcement?
Threatens Safety of Police Officers: H.R. 822 would create
serious and potentially life threatening situations for law
enforcement officers.
For example, during traffic stops, it will be nearly
impossible for law enforcement officers to verify the
validity of 48 different carry permits--forcing officers to
make split-second decisions for their own safety in an
already dangerous situation.
H.R. 822 would also enable criminal traffickers to travel
to out of state gun markets with loaded handguns in the glove
compartment, exposing police to unnecessary danger.
Weakens Law Enforcement's Ability to Detect Criminals:
Inability to prevent gun trafficking: Gun traffickers who
have concealed carry permits would be able to bring cars or
backpacks full of guns into destination states and present
their permit if stopped. As a practical matter, to arrest the
traffickers, police would have to observe them in the act of
selling guns.
Inability to determine if individuals are in compliance
with laws of other states: Officers would have to distinguish
between real and fake carry permits issued not only by their
own state, but by every state. And in
[[Page H7596]]
many cases, officers would have to determine whether a person
is entitled to carry a gun, which would depend on their state
of residence and is nearly impossible to verify quickly.
Legislative History: In 2009, the Senate defeated the Thune
Amendment, a similar legislative proposal to preempt state
concealed carry laws.
Who Opposes National Concealed Carry Reciprocity?
Mayors: Over 600 members of the bipartisan coalition of
Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
Law Enforcement: Major national law enforcement
organizations, including: International Association of Chiefs
of Police; Major Cities Chiefs Association, which includes
the Police Chiefs of 56 major U.S. cities; the Police
Foundation, National Latino Peace Officers Association;
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.
State and Local Law Enforcement Organizations: Alabama
Association of Chiefs of Police, California Police Chiefs
Association, Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police,
Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, Massachusetts Police
Chiefs Association, Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association,
Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, and Wisconsin
Association of Chiefs of Police.
Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.
American Bar Association.
National Network to End Domestic Violence--a coalition of
56 domestic violence victim advocacy organizations.
Faiths United--a coalition of over 30 national religious
groups.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the
aisle talks about a jobs bill. We're not talking about it right now.
But if you look at this card, we have over 20 jobs bills that have
passed out of this body that are sitting in the Senate today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the
Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This is a serious piece of work for me today because less than a year
ago, one of our colleagues from Arizona was shot in the head while she
was trying to convene with her constituents outside a supermarket. The
mayhem was awful. A little 9-year-old girl named Christina-Taylor
Green, a baseball fan who just came to see her Congresswoman, was
killed. And by all accounts, an extraordinary Federal judge named John
Roll died as well as some of Gabby's staff. Numbers of people were
wounded. And yet the only person ever considered by this House would be
the guy and his right to have that gun. What about the rights for the
rest of us? Are we going to have to learn to dance up and down the
street to try to escape the bullets? What happens to us? What about an
amendment for us to ensure that we can be safe?
The statistics of people now being killed in places of worship, the
rising number of people in law enforcement who face unspeakable and
awful things because we won't do our job here to disarm people who are
mentally ill.
I would like to insert into the Record an article from the New York
Times on how easy it is for felons, including the mentally ill, to
regain their gun rights.
{time} 1250
When are we going to reinstate in this House the automatic weapons
ban, and why don't we outlaw guns that are so powerful that they serve
no purpose at all in a civilized society? When will we allow the
Federal authorities to computerize gun sale records so it is easier to
hold guilty individuals responsible for their gun crimes?
In the age of iPhones and Androids, our police are tracing gun crimes
with scraps of paper and handwritten notes. Surely that is a more
important job for us to do here than what we're doing--to say you can
carry a concealed weapon anywhere you want to go because that's who we
are. Apparently, the Republican majority wants that.
Based on today's bill, they think it is more important to pass
legislation that will make it easier to carry a gun to a public
gathering, easier to carry a loaded weapon into NFL stadiums, easier to
carry a gun to the grocery store on Saturday noon, or into your temple
or your church. What in the world? How can we ever explain that to
people who have had gun deaths in their family?
The horrible shooting of our colleague wouldn't have been stopped
with the passage of today's bill, and no one is made safer by allowing
guns into public space. And since last January, Congress hasn't
considered a single piece of legislation that would make it harder for
a mentally ill individual to get a gun. We have done nothing at all to
make sure that another nightmare like the one in Tucson doesn't visit
our country yet again, leaving innocent children, men, and women
victims to a loaded gun. And yet the only person we care about here is
the gun owner.
The only legislation we are considering will make it more convenient
to carry your gun even in States that don't want it. Realizing this
fact really puts the morality of this agenda into perspective.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. This Congress should be considering legislation that
will help the American people, not legislation that fulfills an
ideological agenda, which is what we've been doing all year. I urge my
colleagues to vigorously oppose today's legislation.
[From the New York Times, Nov. 13, 2011]
Felons Finding It Easy to Regain Gun Rights
(By Michael Luo)
In February 2005, Erik Zettergren came home from a party
after midnight with his girlfriend and another couple. They
had all been drinking heavily, and soon the other man and Mr.
Zettergren's girlfriend passed out on his bed. When Mr.
Zettergren went to check on them later, he found his
girlfriend naked from the waist down and the other man, Jason
Robinson, with his pants around his ankles.
Enraged, Mr. Zettergren ordered Mr. Robinson to leave.
After a brief confrontation, Mr. Zettergren shot him in the
temple at point-blank range with a Glock-17 semiautomatic
handgun. He then forced Mr. Robinson's hysterical fiancee, at
gunpoint, to help him dispose of the body in a nearby river.
It was the first homicide in more than 30 years in the
small town of Endicott, in eastern Washington. But for a
judge's ruling two months before, it would probably never
have happened.
For years, Mr. Zettergren had been barred from possessing
firearms because of two felony convictions. He had a history
of mental health problems and friends said he was dangerous.
Yet Mr. Zettergren's gun rights were restored without even a
hearing, under a state law that gave the judge no leeway to
deny the application as long as certain basic requirements
had been met. Mr. Zettergren, then 36, wasted no time
retrieving several guns he had given to a friend for
safekeeping.
``If he hadn't had his rights restored, in this particular
instance, it probably would have saved the life of the other
person,'' said Denis Tracy, the prosecutor in Whitman County,
who handled the murder case.
Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit
their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons
across the country have those rights reinstated, often with
little or no review. In several states, they include people
convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder
and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has
found.
While previously a small number of felons were able to
reclaim their gun rights, the process became commonplace in
many states in the late 1980s, after Congress started
allowing state laws to dictate these reinstatements--part of
an overhaul of federal gun laws orchestrated by the National
Rifle Association. The restoration movement has gathered
force in recent years, as gun rights advocates have sought to
capitalize on the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second
Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms.
This gradual pulling back of what many Americans have
unquestioningly assumed was a blanket prohibition has drawn
relatively little public notice. Indeed, state law
enforcement agencies have scant information, if any, on which
felons are getting their gun rights back, let alone how many
have gone on to commit new crimes.
While many states continue to make it very difficult for
felons to get their gun rights back--and federal felons are
out of luck without a presidential pardon--many other
jurisdictions are far more lenient, The Times found. In some,
restoration is automatic for nonviolent felons as soon as
they complete their sentences. In others, the decision is
left up to judges, but the standards are generally vague, the
process often perfunctory. In some states, even violent
felons face a relatively low bar, with no waiting period
before they can apply.
The Times examined hundreds of restoration cases in several
states, among them Minnesota, where William James Holisky II,
who had a history of stalking and terrorizing women, got his
gun rights back last year, just six months after completing a
three-year prison sentence for firing a shotgun into the
house of a woman who had broken up with him after a handful
of dates. She and her son were inside at the time of the
shooting.
``My whole family's convinced that at some point he'll blow
a gasket and that he'll
[[Page H7597]]
come and shoot someone,'' said Vicky Holisky-Crets, Mr.
Holisky's sister.
Also last year, a judge in Cleveland restored gun rights to
Charles C. Hairston, who had been convicted of first-degree
murder in North Carolina in 1971 for shooting a grocery store
owner in the head with a shotgun. He also had another felony
conviction, in 1995, for corruption of a minor.
Margaret C. Love, a pardon lawyer based in Washington,
D.C., who has researched gun rights restoration laws,
estimated that, depending on the type of crime, in more than
half the states felons have a reasonable chance of getting
back their gun rights.
That universe could well expand, as pro-gun groups shed a
historical reluctance to advocate publicly for gun rights for
felons. Lawyers litigating Second Amendment issues are also
starting to challenge the more restrictive restoration laws.
Pro-gun groups have pressed the issue in the last few years
in states as diverse as Alaska, Ohio, Oregon and Tennessee.
Ohio's Legislature confronted the matter when it passed a
law this year fixing a technicality that threatened to
invalidate the state's restorations.
Ken Hanson, legislative chairman of the Buckeye Firearms
Coalition, argued that felons should be able to reclaim their
gun rights just as they can other civil rights.
``If it's a constitutional right, you treat it with equal
dignity with other rights,'' he said.
But Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition
Against Gun Violence, contended that the public was safer
without guns in the hands of people who have committed
serious crimes.
``It seems that Ohio legislators have plenty of problems to
solve that should be a much higher priority than making sure
criminals have guns,'' Ms. Hoover said in written testimony.
That question--whether the restorations pose a risk to
public safety--has received little study, in part because
data can be hard to come by.
The Times analyzed data from Washington State, where Mr.
Zettergren had his gun rights restored. The most serious
felons are barred, but otherwise judges have no discretion to
reject the petitions, as long as the applicant fulfills
certain criteria. (In 2003, a state appeals court panel
stated that a petitioner ``had no burden to show that he is
safe to own or possess guns.'')
Since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of
domestic violence misdemeanors have regained their gun rights
in the state--430 in 2010 alone--according to the analysis of
data provided by the state police and the court system. Of
that number, more than 400--about 13 percent--have
subsequently committed new crimes, the analysis found. More
than 200 committed felonies, including murder, assault in the
first and second degree, child rape and drive-by shooting.
Even some felons who have regained their firearms rights
say the process needs to be more rigorous.
``It's kind of spooky, isn't it?'' said Beau Krueger, who
has two assaults on his record and got his gun rights back
last year in Minnesota after only a brief hearing, in which
local prosecutors did not even participate. ``We could have
all kinds of crazy hoodlums out here with guns that shouldn't
have guns.''
powerful lobby prevails
The federal firearms prohibition for felons dates to the
late 1960s, when the assassinations of the Rev. Dr. Martin
Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, along with
rioting across the country, set off a clamor for stricter gun
control laws. Congress enacted sweeping legislation that
included a provision extending the firearms ban for convicted
criminals beyond those who had committed ``crimes of
violence,'' a standard adopted in the 1930s.
``All of our people who are deeply concerned about law and
order should hail this day,'' President Lyndon B. Johnson
said upon signing the Gun Control Act in October 1968.
Even the N.R.A. backed the bill. But by the late 1970s, a
more hard-line faction, committed to an expansive view of the
Second Amendment, had taken control of the group. A crowning
achievement was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986,
which significantly loosened federal gun laws.
When it came to felons' gun rights, the legislation
essentially left the matter up to states. The federal gun
restrictions would no longer apply if a state had restored a
felon's civil rights--to vote, sit on a jury and hold public
office--and the individual faced no other firearms
prohibitions.
The restoration issue drew relatively little notice in the
Congressional battle over the bill. But officials of the
federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms identified
the provision in an internal memo as among their serious
concerns. Some state law enforcement officials also sounded
the alarm.
When Senator David F. Durenberger, a Minnesota Republican,
realized after the law passed that thousands of felons,
including those convicted of violent crimes, in his state
would suddenly be getting their gun rights back, he sought
the N.R.A.'s help in rolling back the provision. Doug Kelley,
his chief of staff at the time, thought the group would
``surely want to close this loophole.''
But the senator, Mr. Kelley recalled, ``ran into a stone
wall,'' as the N.R.A. threatened to pull its support for him
if he did not drop the matter, which he eventually did.
``The N.R.A. slammed the door on us,'' Mr. Kelley said.
``That absolutely baffled me.''
Until then, the avenues for restoration had been narrow and
few: a direct appeal to the federal firearms agency, which
conducted detailed background investigations; a state pardon
expressly authorizing gun possession, or a presidential
pardon. Felons convicted of crimes involving guns or other
weapons, as well as those convicted of violating federal gun
laws, were expressly barred from applying to the federal
firearms agency.
By contrast, the restoration of civil rights, which is now
central to regaining gun rights, is relatively routine,
automatic in many states upon completion of a sentence. In
some states, felons must also petition for a judicial order
specifically restoring firearms rights. Other potential paths
include a pardon from the governor or state clemency board or
a ``set aside''--essentially, an annulment--of the
conviction.
Today, in at least 11 states, including Kansas, Ohio,
Minnesota and Rhode Island, restoration of firearms rights is
automatic, without any review at all, for many nonviolent
felons, usually once they finish their sentences, or after a
certain amount of time crime-free. Even violent felons may
petition to have their firearms rights restored in states
like Ohio, Minnesota and Virginia. Some states, including
Georgia and Nebraska, award scores of pardons every year that
specifically confer gun privileges.
Felons face steep odds, though, in states like California,
where the governor's office gives out only a handful of
pardons every year, if that.
``It's a long, drawn-out process,'' said Steve Lindley,
chief of the State Department of Justice's firearms bureau.
``They were convicted of a felony crime. There are penalties
for that.''
Studies on the impact of gun restrictions largely support
barring felons from possessing firearms.
One study, published in the American Journal of Public
Health in 1999, found that denying handgun purchases to
felons cut their risk of committing new gun or violent crimes
by 20 to 30 percent. A year earlier, a study in the Journal
of the American Medical Association found that handgun
purchasers with at least one prior misdemeanor--not even a
felony--were more than seven times as likely as those with no
criminal history to be charged with new offenses over a 15-
year period.
Criminologists studying recidivism have found that felons
usually have to stay out of trouble for about a decade before
their risk of committing a crime equals that of people with
no records. According to Alfred Blumstein, a professor at
Carnegie Mellon University, for violent offenders, that
period is 11 to 15 years; for drug offenders, 10 to 14 years;
and for those who have committed property crimes, 8 to 11
years. An important caveat: Professor Blumstein did not look
at what happens when felons are given guns.
The history of the federal firearms agency's own
restoration program, though, offers reason for caution. The
program came under attack in the early 1990s, when the
Violence Policy Center, a gun control group, discovered that
dozens of felons granted restorations over a five-year period
had been arrested again, including some on charges of
attempted murder and sexual assault. (The center also found
that many of those granted gun rights were felons convicted
of violent or drug-related crimes.) In the resulting uproar
and over the objections of the N.R.A., Congress killed the
program.
A Superficial Process
In 2001, three police officers in the Columbia Heights
suburb of Minneapolis were shot and wounded by a convicted
murderer whose firearms rights had been restored
automatically in 1987, 10 years after he completed a six-and-
a-half year prison sentence and then probation for killing
his estranged wife and a family friend with a shotgun. (The
State Legislature had imposed the 10-year waiting period for
violent felons after it discovered what Senator Durenberger
had feared: that felons' gun rights would be restored
immediately under the Firearm Owners Protection Act.)
What happened in the wake of the shooting is emblematic of
how the issue has played out in many states, particularly
where the gun lobby is powerful.
Two Democratic legislators sought to impose a lifetime
firearms ban on violent felons, although they concluded that
for their bills to have any chance of passing, they would
also have to set up a process that held out a hope of
eventual restoration. They were unable, however, to get their
bills through the Legislature.
The issue was taken up the following year by Republican
lawmakers, but it became wrapped up in legislation to relax
concealed-weapons laws. Initially, a moderate Republican
introduced a bill with a 5- to 10-year waiting period for
regaining gun rights, but the waiting period was scrapped
entirely in the law, written by gun-rights advocates, that
was finally enacted in 2003. That law, which does not even
mandate that prosecutors be notified of the hearings,
requires judges to grant the requests merely if the
petitioners show ``good cause.''
``The decision was, we have good judges and we trust
them,'' said Joseph Olson, who helped write the statute as
president of the advocacy group Concealed Carry Reform Now.
One man who has benefited from a Minnesota judge's gun
rights ruling is William Holisky.
Mr. Holisky, an accountant who has struggled with bipolar
disorder and alcoholism,
[[Page H7598]]
had gone out only a few times with Karen Roman, a nurse he
had met online, before she broke up with him.
In August 2006, Ms. Roman was getting ready to work a night
shift, putting on makeup in the bathroom of her home in
Duluth, when she heard a truck pulling up and a loud boom.
Moments later, she heard another boom and glass breaking. She
hit the floor, calling out to her teenage son in the other
room to do the same as she crawled to the phone to dial 911.
The police arrested Mr. Holisky later that night for
drunken driving. Several months later, they charged him in
the shooting as well. He pleaded guilty to second-degree
assault with a dangerous weapon.
Around the same time, he also pleaded guilty to a felony
charge of making terroristic threats against an elderly
neighbor. The woman had reported to the police that someone--
she suspected Mr. Holisky--had left her a threatening and
obscene note. She had also reported a series of escalating
incidents that included harassing telephone calls, his
entering her apartment and someone's smashing her bedroom
window. Mr. Holisky also had a misdemeanor burglary
conviction from 2003, for breaking into an ex-girlfriend's
house, as well as another misdemeanor conviction for
violating an order of protection.
In Mr. Holisky's gun rights hearing in October 2010 in Two
Harbors, a small town on the north shore of Lake Superior,
Russell Conrow, the prosecutor in Lake County, argued that
Mr. Holisky had not yet proved that he could stay clean,
given that he had just gotten out of prison. Mr. Conrow also
pointed out that there were two active orders of protection
against Mr. Holisky.
``There were people still scared of him,'' Mr. Conrow said
recently.
For his part, Mr. Holisky took documents from the plea
agreement in his assault case, in which the prosecutor in
neighboring St. Louis County agreed not to oppose the
restoration of his firearms rights.
Mr. Holisky, who is 59, did not specify in his often-
rambling petition exactly why he wanted a gun. He described
his behavior in 2006 as an ``aberration.''
The county judge, Kenneth Sandvik, was set to retire in a
few months. He knew Mr. Holisky's family from growing up in
the community. Several weeks later, he ruled that Mr. Holisky
had met the basic requirements of the law.
In an interview, Judge Sandvik said he had given
considerable weight to the St. Louis County prosecutor's
agreement not to oppose the restoration of gun rights for Mr.
Holisky. But Gary Bjorklund, an assistant St. Louis County
attorney, said in an interview that he had been focused on
extracting a guilty plea that would send Mr. Holisky to
prison and had thought no judge would take a firearms request
from Mr. Holisky seriously.
Judge Sandvik acknowledged that he had not looked into the
details of Mr. Holisky's assault case, arguing that his job
had been only to review what the prosecutor had presented to
him.
``We're not investigators,'' he said.
The ease with which Mr. Holisky regained his gun rights
does not appear to be an anomaly. Using partial data from
Minnesota's Judicial Branch, The Times identified more than
70 cases since 2004 of people convicted of ``crimes of
violence'' who have gotten their gun rights back. A closer
look at a number of them found a superficial process. The
cases included those of Mr. Krueger, who criticized the
system as insufficiently rigorous after winning back his gun
rights in a perfunctory hearing, and of another man whose
petition was approved without even a hearing, even though his
felony involved pulling a gun on a man.
The ruling in Mr. Holisky's case prompted members of his
family to write a series of frantic e-mails to Judge Sandvik
and Mr. Conrow, warning of dire consequences.
It is not entirely clear whether Mr. Holisky, who did not
respond to several requests for comment, is legally able to
buy a gun at this point, because at least one of the
outstanding orders of protection, which expires next year,
appears to trip another federal prohibition. But Mr. Holisky
has been writing letters to relatives in Texas, threatening
legal action if they do not turn over his gun collection.
So far, they have refused.
A Killer's Successful Petition
Just as in Minnesota, violent felons in Ohio are allowed to
apply for restoration of firearms rights after completing
their sentences. The statute is similarly vague, requiring
only that a judge find that the petitioner has ``led a law-
abiding life since discharge or release, and appears likely
to do so.''
Only a handful of county clerks in Ohio said they could
track these cases, producing records on several dozen
restorations. They included people who had been convicted of
first-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, felonious
assault and sexual battery.
The case of Charles Hairston in Cuyahoga County stands out.
Mr. Hairston was 17 in January 1971, when he shot a man to
death in Winston-Salem, N.C. Mr. Hairston and a group of
neighborhood toughs had been preparing to rob a local grocery
store when the owner, Charles Minor, 55, closed up and headed
for his car.
``I am fixing to get him,'' Mr. Hairston told one of his
friends, according to witness statements to the police,
before he pulled the trigger on a 20-gauge shotgun.
Mr. Hairston spent 18 years in prison before being released
on parole in 1989. He moved to Cleveland and started working
in heating and cooling, a trade he had learned behind bars.
In 1995, he pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge for
allegedly grabbing and pushing his wife.
More seriously, later that year he was indicted on 60
counts of rape, felonious sexual penetration and gross sexual
imposition; prosecutors charged that he had forced sex upon
his stepdaughter, starting when she was 12. He was acquitted
of the most serious charges and convicted only of corruption
of a minor for one encounter at a motel for which prosecutors
were able to provide corroborating evidence beyond the girl's
detailed testimony.
Mr. Hairston, who denies the charges and is still fighting
the conviction, filed his first gun rights restoration
application in 2006 in Cuyahoga County but was summarily
denied.
When he filed a new petition two years later, a judge
thought he was ineligible and denied him again, though she
wrote in her decision that she did not believe Mr. Hairston
was likely to break the law again. But an appeals court ruled
that the judge had misread the statute, and sent the case
back for another hearing late last year.
The county prosecutor's office had vigorously opposed the
restoration from the beginning. But Mr. Hairston, who took in
several friends as character witnesses, told the judge he had
grown up in prison.
``Nearly 40 years ago, you know, I was a dumb kid,'' Mr.
Hairston said at his first hearing. He added, ``I am in a
situation now where if, God forbid, if someone was to come
into my home and attack me, my wife, there isn't a lot I
could say about it, there isn't a lot I could do.''
In the end, the judge, Hollie L. Gallagher, granted his
petition without comment.
Soon after the judge's ruling, Mr. Hairston obtained a
concealed weapons permit from a neighboring county and bought
a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun.
Returning to Crime
Erik Zettergren originally lost his gun rights in 1987
because of a felony conviction for dealing marijuana. A
decade later, the police went to his house after being called
by his ex-wife and discovered a cache of guns. He was
convicted of another felony, unlawful possession of a
firearm.
He relinquished his weapons to friends but eventually got
them back, sometimes hiding them in an old car in his
backyard, according to friends. Sometime after that, though,
he became worried that the police might come after him again
and turned over the guns--two long guns and a Glock pistol--
to a friend, Tom Williams.
``I kept them under my bed,'' Mr. Williams said.
In December 2004, Mr. Zettergren successfully petitioned in
Kittitas County--a three-hour drive from his home--to have
his gun rights restored. (Like Minnesota's, Washington's law
allows petitioners to apply anywhere.) Court records show he
did not even have a hearing. Instead, his lawyer, Paul T.
Ferris, who specializes in these cases, took care of the
matter.
Right away, Mr. Zettergren retrieved his guns from Mr.
Williams and soon obtained a concealed pistol license. He
made something of a sport of showing off his Glock to
friends. ``He was so proud of that thing,'' said Larry
Persons, a friend. ``He was flashing it in front of
everybody.''
Not long after, he would use it in the killing.
Washington's gun rights restoration statute dates to a 1995
statewide initiative, the Hard Times for Armed Crimes Act,
that toughened penalties for crimes involving firearms. The
initiative was spearheaded, in part, by pro-gun activists,
including leaders of the Second Amendment Foundation, an
advocacy group, and the N.R.A.
Although it drew little notice at the time, the legislation
also included an expansion of what had been very limited
eligibility for restoration of firearms rights.
``There were a lot of people who we felt should be able to
get their gun rights restored who could not,'' said Alan M.
Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, who was
active in the effort.
Under the legislation, ``Class A'' felons--who have
committed the most serious crimes, like murder and
manslaughter--are ineligible, as are sex offenders.
Otherwise, judges are required to grant the petitions as long
as, essentially, felons have not been convicted of any new
crimes in the five years after completing their sentences.
Judges have no discretion to deny the requests based upon
character, mental health or any other factors. Mr. Gottlieb
said they explicitly wrote the statute this way.
``We were having problems with judges that weren't going to
restore rights no matter what,'' he said.
The statute's mix of strictness and leniency makes
Washington a useful testing ground.
The Times's analysis found that among the more than 400
people who committed crimes after winning back their gun
rights under the new law, more than 70 committed Class A or
B felonies. Over all, more than 80 were convicted of some
sort of assault and more than 100 of drug offenses.
There were cases like that of Mitchell W. Reed,
disqualified from possessing firearms after a 1984 felony
cocaine conviction. He also has seven misdemeanor convictions
on his record from the 1980s, including for assault. In 2003,
he successfully petitioned for
[[Page H7599]]
his gun rights in Snohomish County Superior Court.
His wife, Debi Reed, went with him to the hearing and said
in an interview that she had been shocked at how easily his
rights were restored. He immediately bought a 9-millimeter
semiautomatic handgun.
The following year, she said, he beat her up for the first
time. In 2008 he became more angry and violent, she said, in
one instance putting a gun in her hand during an argument,
pointing it at his head and saying he was going to frame her
for murder. During another fight that year, he struck her
with a gun, giving her a black eye, and held a loaded gun to
her head.
Mr. Reed was ultimately arrested in 2009 and charged with
harassing and threatening to kill his wife's ex-husband.
While those charges were pending, he was arrested on second-
degree assault charges after he beat up and tried to strangle
his wife. The charging documents also mentioned the 2008 gun
episode. He eventually pleaded guilty to third-degree assault
and intimidating a witness, as well as fourth-degree assault
and harassment.
Jason C. Keller, disqualified because of a 1997 burglary
conviction, had his rights restored after a brief hearing in
2006. He waited a few years before buying a Hi-Point .40-
caliber semiautomatic pistol, according to his girlfriend at
the time, Shawna Braylock. But she did not trust him with the
gun because of his temper, making him keep it at his parents'
house.
In 2010, Mr. Keller left a Fourth of July party in the late
evening, picked up his gun and drove to the house of a woman
he knew. He fired several shots as she stood out front with
her 9-year-old son; her 6-year-old daughter was sleeping
inside. Mr. Keller pleaded guilty to drive-by shooting, a
felony.
In Mr. Zettergren's case, his friends said they were
shocked that a judge had restored his gun rights, because
they knew he was receiving disability payments, in part
because of mental health problems.
``Most of the people around here that knew him, knew that
he could be dangerous,'' said Darrell Reinhardt, one of Mr.
Zettergren's friends.
Mr. Zettergren's mental health issues, in fact, have been
at the heart of his efforts to appeal his convictions for
second-degree murder, second-degree assault and unlawful
imprisonment. He had been in counseling since 2000, and
several mental health experts had found he had post-traumatic
stress disorder and major depression, saying he had a ``very
high degree of psychological disturbance'' and suffered
frequent ``flashbacks and disturbing images,'' according to a
declaration from a forensic psychologist in one of Mr.
Zettergren's appeal briefs. The post-traumatic stress,
according to the psychologist, resulted from scenes he had
witnessed years before, including his mother's death by
electrocution and the shooting death of a friend.
None of this was reviewed by the judge who heard Mr.
Zettergren's gun rights petition.
Donna Bly, the mother of Jason Robinson, Mr. Zettergren's
shooting victim, considered suing the county for negligence
over the decision but could not find a lawyer to take the
case. She also tried bringing the issue up with a state
legislator but got nowhere.
``This man did not deserve to have his gun rights back,''
she said.
Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In 2007 a Colorado man named Matthew Murray allegedly wrote online,
``All I want to do is kill and injure as many Christians as I can.''
Murray then went on to a shooting rampage, first killing two young
students at a missionary training center outside of Denver. And then at
a gathering of 7,000 people in and around the New Life Church in
Colorado Springs, Colorado, with a rifle and a backpack full of
ammunition, Murray entered the church and opened fire, killing two
sisters. Murray was ultimately stopped and killed by a church member
and a volunteer security guard, Jeanne Assam, who has a concealed-carry
permit and once worked in law enforcement. Assam shot Murray several
times, leading him to kill himself.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
In hearing the story of my friend from Florida and my colleague on
the Rules Committee, again I think it just emphasizes that my State,
Colorado, also has a concealed-carry process. We have a must-issue
provision. Some of our county sheriffs were not issuing and were
denying issuance unreasonably. Again, it highlights that this entire
bill is a dangerous solution in search of a problem.
Colorado has reciprocal concealed-carry arrangements with over 30
States, including all of our neighboring States. So you can drive from
Colorado to Wyoming in the north, to the south to New Mexico, and east
or west, and you're in no danger about your concealed weapon permit not
being recognized.
And, yes, there are some States that we don't have a reciprocal
agreement from. For instance, the State of Nevada. I fail to be
convinced that the proper venue for that is not for the people of the
sovereign State of Nevada and the sovereign State of Colorado to elect
leadership that will work on a reciprocal carry arrangement if that's
what they want to do. If there is a real issue there, and my
constituents are hampered by their ability not to have their Colorado
concealed weapons permit recognized let's say in the State of
California, that's a matter between the States.
Opening the door for Federal intervention in this very sensitive area
opens the door to a Federal gun owner registry, which a number of gun
rights advocates in my district have expressed a great deal of worry
over, as well as opening the door for a whole host of other problems
that can come from Washington, D.C., bureaucrats deciding where you can
and can't take your guns rather than protecting our Second Amendment in
the States.
Some other concerns have been articulated to me from some of the gun
owner rights groups in the State of Colorado. They're worried about
more onerous standards to acquire a permit. They're worried about a
national database of permit holders. They're also worried about this
particular provision nullifying the constitutional carry provisions
that are on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming. And
that States that have a popular election method of amending the
Constitution are able to do so.
So again, what's the problem? I have not had any constituents contact
me worried that they can't use their concealed weapons permit in a
particular State. I think they are generally, and I have many
concealed-carry license holders in my district. I don't happen to be
one myself, but they are able to, again, in all the bordering States
drive across State borders and not have to worry about relicensing or
notifying authorities in those States. I think the gentleman from
Florida articulated an example in Colorado where our concealed-carry
permit holder helped save some lives, and I think that is a fine and
good thing. Again, it is an area of State sovereignty.
I asked the chair of the Judiciary Committee yesterday in Rules
whether he thought this provision was constitutionally required to
protect the Second Amendment. He responded that no, the State does not
have to have a concealed weapons system, a concealed-carry system under
the Second Amendment. It is a matter of discretion or policy in that
State.
I think this bill runs contrary to State sovereignty and to the
privacy of individuals. That's why I encourage my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this bill.
Mr. NUGENT. The gentleman talks about States' rights. We agree, there
are States that do not have concealed-carry permits. So it is within
the States' rights to decide how they are going to regulate that
particular issue in regards to weapons in their State.
Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Florida for handling the rule.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the
underlying bill. As a life member of the National Rifle Association and
strong supporter of the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution, I am pleased to speak in support of H.R. 822, the
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which will help protect law-
abiding American citizens' right to bear arms.
The Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that ``the
inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment
right,'' and in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the Federal Government
can intervene to ensure that State and local governments are not
restricting Second Amendment rights. Statistics show correlation
between right-to-carry laws and a decrease in violent crime rates.
According to NRA estimates based on the FBI's Annual Uniform Crime
Report, States that have right-to-carry laws have 22 percent lower
total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent
lower robbery
[[Page H7600]]
rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates compared to the
rest of the country.
Law-abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves from
criminals and defend themselves with firearms. Throughout my career in
elected office, I have worked with my colleagues to ensure that
American citizens maintain their Second Amendment rights.
Each State has different eligibility requirements, and H.R. 822
maintains the State's ability to set its own eligibility. However, the
bill would end uncertainty and confusion for concealed-carry permit
holders when they travel.
Forty-nine States allow individuals to conceal and carry handguns,
and the bill before us would allow individuals who hold a concealed-
carry permit in their State of residence to carry that weapon in other
States that allow concealed carry. Madam Speaker, this rule should be
passed unanimously, as should the underlying bill.
{time} 1300
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record
dissenting views from the Judiciary Committee, entitled, ``Loosening
Restrictions on the Carrying of Concealed Guns in Public Does Not
Improve Public Safety.''
Concealed carry laws have not made us safer. As a result,
forcing states with strict permitting standards to recognize
permits issued by states with weak standards would make us
even less safe. Proponents of H.R. 822 have cited research by
John Lott that has been widely discredited. In fact, as
columnist Michelle Malkin has pointed out, Lott has been
accused of fabricating a study on which he bases the claim
that 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved mere
brandishing as opposed to shooting. Malkin reported that Lott
incorrectly tried to attribute the data to three different
studies, and when another researcher offered to independently
verify Lott's findings, Lott claimed to have lost all of his
data in a computer crash. He also could not produce any
financial records, contemporaneous records or any of the
students who supposedly worked on the survey. 78 other
studies conclude that guns are far more likely to be used in
crime than in self-defense. One such study found that the
number of criminal gun uses outnumbered the self-defense use
of a gun by a factor of at least 4 to 1.79
At this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
Mr. BOREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 822, the
National Right-to-Carry Act of 2011. The Second Amendment of the United
States Constitution provides citizens with the individual right to keep
and bear arms. This right enables Americans to use firearms for self-
protection, for hunting, and for other lawful activities.
H.R. 822 would guarantee that individuals who are legally licensed to
carry a concealed weapon in their home State could also legally carry a
concealed weapon in another State. The bill seeks to protect our
fundamental liberty, not restrict it. Just as one State recognizes a
driver's license issued by another State, I believe States should
recognize conceal-and-carry licenses issued by another.
Today, some States already have reciprocity agreements to recognize
the conceal-and-carry laws of other States, while some do not. The
result is a piecemeal system where a law-abiding citizen may be
required to give up his or her weapon at a State line. If passed, this
bill would streamline the system by making it more simple and uniform.
H.R. 822 does not create Federal standards for obtaining permits nor
does it require States to adopt a specific licensing system. Each
State's right to determine its own permitting system will remain intact
regardless of H.R. 822.
Since the founding of our Nation, American citizens have had the
constitutional right to bear arms, and I believe this legislation is a
commonsense solution to preserve that right. I urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes'' on the rule today and to support final passage of H.R.
822.
Mr. NUGENT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. It's sad that we're taking time that should be spent
on the economy and making communities safer and stronger to facilitate,
instead, less rational and less effective gun safety laws.
I deeply appreciate the gentlewoman from New York putting The New
York Times article from last Sunday in the Record. The gentleman from
Florida talks about his experience. Well, in that article is sad
evidence. For example, in the State of Washington where that tragic
occurrence occurred, since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people
convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors have regained gun rights.
And according to the analysis provided by the State court system, of
those, more than 400, about 13 percent, have subsequently committed new
crimes, and more than 200 committed felonies including murder, assault
in the first and second degree, child rape, and drive-by shooting.
The gentleman talks about evidence. Well, the study in the American
Public Health Journal referenced in that article found that denying
handgun purchases to felons cut the risk of their committing new gun or
violent crimes by 20 to 30 percent. And another study by the Journal of
the American Medical Association found that handgun purchasers with at
least one prior misdemeanor--not a felony, a misdemeanor--were more
than seven times as likely as those with no criminal record to be
charged with new offenses.
I come from a State that would have its protections undermined by
this proposal. Now, I think that the fact that we require character
references, that people have to be 21 years of age, and that we
prohibit concealed weapon carrying by dangerous criminals--those
convicted of a misdemeanor such as assault, harassment, or driving
while intoxicated--I think those are reasonable. That's the minimum in
Oregon. And instead, the enactment of this legislation will enable a
race to the bottom where the lowest common denominator will determine
gun safety laws in Oregon. I think that's wrong.
I urge a rejection of the rule and the bill.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr.
Scott.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, this bill undermines public
safety, and that's why law enforcement organizations oppose the bill.
It's said that this is no national law established by this legislation.
That's right, because if there were a national law, there would be
national standards. This is actually worse. The law, in effect, will
actually be the law of the State with the weakest concealed weapons
permits that will essentially become the law of the land, because you
could use that permit in any State. This bill allows people who are
ineligible to get a concealed weapons permit in their home State to go
to another jurisdiction and get a concealed weapons permit and use that
concealed weapons permit anywhere in the country except their home
State.
Now States have different minimum standards for concealed weapons,
such as some require minimum training so that you know what you're
dealing with. Others deny permits to certain sex offenders or domestic
violence offenders. All of those minimum standards would be overridden
by this bill because permits from other States will have to be
recognized.
The basic controversy, Madam Speaker, presented by this bill is the
question of what happens if more people carry firearms. Some people
believe that if more people carry firearms, the crime rate will go
down. The studies that I've seen conclude that if more people are
carrying firearms, it is more likely that someone in their home or an
innocent neighbor will be killed. That's more likely than the firearm
being successfully used to thwart a crime.
We should not undermine public safety. We should allow States to set
their own concealed weapons standards and defeat this rule, and if the
rule passes, defeat the bill.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 822.
As you know, this committee voted down a
[[Page H7601]]
motion to consider the bill under an open rule. This is such an
important issue that we really need to have the entire Nation hear
about it and have all of us have our voices heard.
I want to make sure that I get to speak on an amendment of mine that
is going to be considered. Under my amendment, States would be required
to proactively opt-in to the agreements called for by H.R. 822. This
would restore the critical decision of who should be able to carry a
concealed handgun in our communities back to where it belongs--to the
local governments that have to deal with the policing and other
consequences such as this provision will do. We also will hear about
other amendments that would restore rights back to States and safety
back to our communities and some sanity back into this debate.
Madam Speaker, I think it's extremely important that we look at this
as a States' rights issue. My State has concealed weapons laws. We
allow people to have concealed weapons. But there are other States that
do not come up to our standard, and we don't want them coming into our
State and telling us what to do. I suggest that we really look at this
very carefully, and hopefully my colleagues will definitely vote for my
amendment tomorrow when it comes up.
We can deal with this. The Supreme Court has said people have the
right to own a gun. They also said localities have the right to make
the laws safe for their constituents. I happen to believe that H.R. 822
and the way this rule is written is not good for the United States of
America, it's not good for the people of America, and I know it's not
good for my State of New York.
{time} 1310
Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of
the underlying bill and the rule. This is a critical issue with respect
to Americans' basic rights.
Courts have held over almost a century and a half that the right to
bear arms is simply more than the Second and the 14th Amendment. It
decided in the case of Beard v. U.S. in 1895 that citizens were
entitled to repel force by force, and entitled to stand their ground
and meet any attack made on them by a deadly weapon. They then ruled 3
years ago in the D.C. v. Heller case, where they essentially declared
self-defense as an inherent right central to the Second Amendment. And
then in the case emanating in my State of Illinois, in the case of
McDonald v. City of Chicago, further elaborated and extended that
constitutional protection.
So the underlying bill and American citizens' right and the ability
to carry firearms from State to State and to have that essential right
built in, I think, is critical.
I rise in reluctant support, however, of the rule and the bill only
from this standpoint, and that's the reason, in part, for my time here
today, which I thank the gentleman for and I thank the Members of this
Chamber for.
Illinois is unique in that we have no carry-conceal weapon law. We
have no ability on the part of Illinois citizens to defend themselves.
We have no right or ability on the part of Illinois citizens to
exercise their Second and 14th Amendment rights. This bill, as it now
reads, would extend the right only to other States--and I'm supportive
of that because I think it's critical that we extend that right--but I
am committed, as well as a number of my Illinois colleagues, and I
think Second Amendment and fundamental rights Congressmen throughout
the United States, to restore that right and to bring that right to
Illinois citizens.
Time after time after time, as I visit the coffee houses, as I meet
with individuals throughout the district, as I meet with people
throughout the State, we are essentially denied in Illinois the rights
and privileges of every other citizen of every other State in the Union
except Illinois. That's a glaring deficiency, it's an omission, and I
believe, frankly, that it strikes at the core of our constitutional
guarantees.
I am going to continue to fight, not only on this bill, but on
standalone legislation down the line and through the process to bring
to Illinois the same rights, keep and bear arms, Second and 14th
Amendment rights, that other citizens have throughout the country. It's
extraordinarily important. It reaches at the essence of our
Constitution, the essence of our guarantees as participants in a
republic of civil liberties, and I believe that it is critical that we
continue the fight now together with my colleagues, Congressman
Hultgren and others from Illinois who have joined me in this process.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NUGENT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. I appreciate the time.
I support the bill. I support the rule. But I also support--and I
want to conclude by saying this--Illinois citizens' right to keep and
bear arms that are being flagrantly denied by our Illinois legislature.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr.
Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
rule and the bill, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. It's
the epitome of Federal arrogance that would impose its will on the 50
State legislatures in this country.
This bill tramples on our system of federalism and endangers the
public safety by forcing States to allow the carrying of concealed
firearms by out-of-state residents even if they have not met basic
licensing or training requirements mandated for carrying in that State.
This total disregard for State laws may come as a shock to Americans
who have always been told that these Tea Party Republicans want to
shrink the scope of the Federal Government, but instead of creating
jobs, we are here considering--strongly--a bill that is opposed by law
enforcement officials throughout the States and throughout the country.
This bill is nothing more than a piece of special interest legislation
for the National Rifle Association.
Under this bill, States will no longer be able to set standards for
who may carry concealed, loaded guns in public. States that prevent
those convicted of violent crime from carrying a concealed weapon would
no longer be able to enforce their State laws. The Second Amendment
protects the right to bear arms, but it is not, ladies and gentlemen,
absolute.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
Mr. POMPEO. I applaud the House for taking up H.R. 822, the National
Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. As a veteran and a strong defender of
the Second Amendment, I encourage all of my colleagues to support me in
this important piece of legislation.
In Kansas, in 2007, we began to issue concealed-carry permits. Since
then, Kansas has entered into agreements with many other States across
the region to create interstate reciprocity. And while many States have
similar agreements, they benefit only a portion of the American
population that have this basic fundamental right to keep and bear
arms.
The legislation and the rule we're considering today offer an
opportunity for the Federal Government to facilitate cohesion between
the States without extending its reach further into our laws than is
necessary. The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act would allow
concealed-carry permits in one State to be legally recognized in
another and accepted in every other State of the Union that has similar
set of laws.
Under the bill, everyone is still required to follow the firearm laws
in each of the different States in which they choose to carry. Our
Founding Fathers considered this right to bear arms so important they
put it in the Constitution. Allowing this reciprocity is a simple act
of extending what our founders originally intended.
I hope that Congress will honor this principle by supporting this
rule and passing this bill, which at its core does nothing more than
protect the Second Amendment right of every Kansan and every law-
abiding citizen.
Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I advise my colleague from Massachusetts
that I have one remaining speaker.
[[Page H7602]]
Mr. McGOVERN. Then I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend on the Rules Committee for yielding.
I rise in strong support of this rule today. Now, I hear a lot of
conversation about States' rights here on the House floor--federalism,
you know, that debate that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had more
than two centuries ago. It's an important debate to have, and I hope we
have that debate on every single thing that we do in this body. I hope
we ask ourselves that question every single day: Is this a
responsibility and a role the Federal Government ought to be playing,
or should this be something that's left to the States?
Sadly, I've heard more of that enthusiasm today than I usually hear
down here, but I welcome it--not as a step in the wrong direction, but
a step towards that new beginning. I believe that we can absolutely
come together around those kinds of uniting issues: Does the Federal
Government need to be involved in this or does it not?
The reason I'm in strong support of this rule, however, is that it
made 10 amendments in order. You know, this bill, this concealed-carry
reciprocity bill--and in fairness, full disclosure, I'm literally a
card-carrying member of the concealed-carry bandwagon. I've got my
Georgia carry permit here in my pocket, I have since I was 22 and
living in a neighborhood that I thought I needed some self-protection
living in.
This is a discussion that this body has been trying to have for about
15 years. As long as I can remember watching Congress, this bill has
been knocking around in Congress and no one has ever brought it to the
floor of the House despite a broad bipartisan majority of the body
cosponsoring it. I've always wondered why, because for Pete's sakes, if
it's something that a majority of the body is going to cosponsor, then
it ought to be something that the majority of the body is going to
support, and we ought to bring it to the House floor and let the House
work its will.
I'm still struggling with the underlying legislation, but I
appreciate this leadership and this Rules Committee for bringing a bill
to the floor when more than a majority of the House has cosponsored it.
And I appreciate this leadership and this Rules Committee for giving us
10 amendments from which to choose to improve the bill. There are opt-
in provisions if you're worried about federalism. There are honor State
compact amendments if you're worried about federalism. There are study
amendments with the GAO to sort out whether or not there are unintended
consequences with regard to nonresident permits.
{time} 1320
These choices are out there for us. Not only did this Rules Committee
bring forward a bill that other Congresses have not had the courage to
bring forward, but it brought it forward in a way that this body can
work its will. Eight Democratic amendments, as I recall, two Republican
amendments. That's the kind of House I came to Congress as a freshman
to work in.
I appreciate the work the Rules Committee did to make this possible,
and I appreciate, Madam Speaker, the work of the leadership in guiding
us down this path.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record
an article from The New York Times, entitled, ``So Much for Small
Government.''
[From the New York Times, Oct. 25, 2011]
So Much for Small Government
House Republicans usually claim to be champions of both
small government and states' rights, which makes it
hypocritical, and downright reckless, that they are obsessed
with taking away the authority of states to decide who is
allowed to carry a concealed and loaded handgun.
On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee voted 19 to 11
for a measure that would do exactly that. Only one
Republican, Representative Dan Lungren of California, joined
the committee's Democratic members in voting against the
bill.
This extreme legislation, the National Right-to-Carry
Reciprocity Act of 2011, would obliterate state and local
eligibility rules for concealed weapons and the state's
discretion to decide whether to honor another's permits.
At least 36 states now set a minimum age of 21 for carrying
concealed guns, and 35 states require some sort of gun-safety
training. Thirty-eight states prohibit people convicted of
certain violent crimes like misdemeanor assault or sex crimes
from carrying concealed weapons.
The act would override those rules, requiring states with
tight restrictions, like New York and California, to allow
people with permits from states with lax laws to tote
concealed and loaded guns in their jurisdiction. Wording
added by the committee exempts people with a concealed-carry
permit from one state from having to meet eligibility
standards set by the state they are visiting.
The measure, pushed by the National Rifle Association,
would undermine legitimate states' rights by nationalizing
lenient gun rules most states have rejected for themselves.
It would increase the chance for gun violence and make it
harder to combat illegal gun trafficking.
Nevertheless, the full House is expected to approve the
bill soon. That would leave it to the Senate, where a similar
bill could surface any day, to protect Americans. Much will
depend on Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader.
He voted for a similar measure two years ago while running
for reelection. Nevada law enforcement groups oppose the
bill, and the state recently ended reciprocity for concealed-
carry permits with Utah and Florida out of concern about the
weak licensing rules in those states. For the safety of the
people in Nevada and elsewhere, he needs to lead in the right
direction this time.
I would also like to insert into the Record an article by Frank
Bruni, entitled, ``Have Glock, Will Travel.''
[From the New York Times, Oct. 24, 2011]
Have Glock, Will Travel
(By Frank Bruni)
Between the struggle to fold a sport jacket so it doesn't
wrinkle, the 45-minute wait on a security line if I'm flying,
the price of gas if I'm driving and the worry either way that
I left the coffee maker on, I thought I was pretty well
versed in the inconveniences and stresses of domestic travel.
Hardly! Things could be much, much worse, namely if I were
a gun owner with a permit to carry a concealed firearm in my
home state and an itch to do so in any other state I visited
as well.
As matters now stand, I'd have to defer to the laws of
those states, which vary widely. In some, my permit from back
home would suffice, even if getting it required little more
than proper adult identification, proof of residency and a
smile. The smile might even have been negotiable. A scowl and
a clean felony record and I was good to go.
Other states are sticklers, recognizing only their own
concealed-carry permits and granting or withholding those
based on such killjoy criteria as whether someone has a
violent misdemeanor conviction, a history of alcohol abuse or
any actual training in weapon safety. Some free country,
ours.
Thank heaven for the National Rifle Association, its sights
ever fixed on the forces that try to separate Americans from
the deadly firearms they like to keep snug at their sides.
The N.R.A. is pushing a bill, the National Right-to-Carry
Reciprocity Act of 2011, that would eliminate the gun-toting
traveler's woes. Should it become law, any state that grants
concealed-carry permits, no matter how strict the conditions,
would be forced to honor a visitor's concealed-carry permit
from another state, no matter how lax that state's standards.
Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A.'s chief lobbyist, recently wrote
that the current situation ``presents a nightmare for
interstate travel, as many Americans are forced to check
their Second Amendment rights, and their fundamental right to
self-defense, at the state line.''
Nightmare? I think that term better applies to the N.R.A.,
though it's not the first word that springs to mind when I
mull its current effort.
Contradiction, hypocrisy: those words rush in ahead. The
bill thus far has more than 200 Republican cosponsors in the
House, many of them conservatives who otherwise complain
about attempts by an overbearing federal government to
trample on states' rights in the realms of health care, tort
reform, education--you name it. But to promote concealed
guns, they're encouraging big, bad Washington to trample to
its heart's content.
Imagine how apoplectic they'd be if, on certain other
matters, Washington forced their states to yield to others'
values the way this bill, H.R. 822, would compel New York,
Massachusetts and Connecticut to honor more permissive gun-
control regulations from the South and West. As it happens
these three Northeastern states all perform same-sex
marriages, which more conservative states do not have to
recognize.
It's not fair to talk only about Republicans. H.R. 822 has
dozens of Democratic co-sponsors as well, and when Democrats
controlled Congress for the first two years of Barack Obama's
presidency, they made no major progress on gun control.
Reluctant to cross the N.R.A., they let it slide.
In 2009, when Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in
the Senate, was about to enter a tough reelection battle in
Nevada, he actually voted in favor of legislation highly
[[Page H7603]]
similar to H.R. 822. It was defeated. That same year
President Obama signed a law permitting concealed guns in
national parks.
The story on the state level has been just as sad over the
last few years. Wisconsin recently approved concealed-carry
legislation, leaving Illinois the only state in which
civilians can't carry concealed firearms. Several states have
enacted laws spelling out that concealed weapons can in many
circumstances be carried into bars.
One was Tennessee, where a state lawmaker who sponsored the
legislation, Curry Todd, sometimes carries a loaded .38-
caliber gun. I know this because it was beside him when
Nashville Cops pulled him over two weeks ago for drunken
driving. They also charged him with carrying a firearm in
public while intoxicated. At least that's still illegal.
New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and
several other states don't have reciprocity arrangements that
allow someone like Todd to pay an armed courtesy call. That's
because New York officials can deny concealed-carry permits
on a case-by-case basis, whereas many other states--South
Dakota, for example--don't put much stock in such scrutiny.
H.R. 822, now in the House Judiciary Committee, makes a
mockery of our diverse values and strategies for public
safety. If it were enacted, off to New York the South Dakotan
tourist could go, 9-millimeter Glock in tow.
That's not liberty. More like lunacy.
I would also like to insert into the Record a letter to the
leadership of this House signed by Martha Coakley, the attorney general
of Massachusetts, opposing this legislation.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of the Attorney
General,
Boston, MA, November 9, 2011.
Re H.R. 822, ``National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of
2011''.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Senate Majority Leader, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Senate Republican Leader, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker of the House, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
House Democratic Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Honorable Congressional Leaders: As the chief law
enforcement officer for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I
am writing to express my strong opposition to H.R. 822, the
``National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011,'' which
would permit individuals who are authorized to carry
concealed firearms in their state of residence to carry
concealed handguns in other states, forcing states to
recognize all other states' permits to carry concealed
firearms. Any legislation that would override the concealed
carry laws of nearly every state is an affront to states'
individual law enforcement efforts and should not be passed
into law.
A national concealed carry reciprocity law would force
states to recognize every other state's permit to carry
concealed, loaded firearms, creating a lowest common
denominator approach to public safety that would undermine
state and municipal authorities, endanger police officers and
make it more difficult to prosecute gun traffickers. As you
know, states issue permits to carry concealed firearms, and
each state establishes its own criteria in deciding who may
carry concealed firearms within its jurisdiction. Indeed,
laws permitting individuals to carry concealed weapons vary
from state-to-state. For example, some states require
residents to complete training and meet other conditions
before obtaining a permit, while others do not.
National concealed carry reciprocity could create serious
and potentially life-threatening situations for police
officers. During police traffic stops, it would be nearly
impossible for officers to verify every other state's carry
permits. In addition, this legislation would make it easier
for gun traffickers to travel across state lines with
concealed, loaded firearms, exposing police officers to
unnecessary danger and making our communities less safe.
This dangerous initiative is opposed by a broad coalition
of national law enforcement organizations, including the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major
Cities Chiefs Association, and the Police Foundation; more
than 600 members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns; various
state law enforcement organizations; faith leaders;
prosecutors, including the American Prosecutors Association
and the American Bar Association; and the National Network to
End Domestic Violence, representing 56 domestic violence
prevention organizations nationwide--a similar coalition to
the one that helped to defeat this legislation on the floor
of the Senate in 2009.
Massachusetts has some of most stringent firearms safety
protections in the nation. By allowing out-of-state permit
holders to bring concealed, loaded firearms into our
communities where they would not otherwise be allowed to
carry, this legislation would greatly undermine public safety
in our Commonwealth. A national concealed carry reciprocity
amendment puts our citizens and police at risk and takes away
the ability of state and local government to carefully craft
laws that protect the public.
I urge Congress to defeat this dangerous initiative.
Cordially,
Martha Coakley,
Massachusetts Attorney General.
Madam Speaker, we just heard from the gentleman from Georgia that we
should somehow be grateful that the Rules Committee majority threw some
crumbs our way. But the fact is this is not an open rule. This is not
an open process. And for a majority that came in saying that everything
was going to be open, they have not kept their promise, and this is far
from it. A lot of good amendments were not made in order. Members don't
have the right to offer amendments here on the floor.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, out of fairness, and
especially my Republican friend, in keeping with your promise when you
took the majority, please vote ``no'' on this rule.
I will also say, Madam Speaker, that I oppose this bill because it
tramples on the rights of my State and it tramples on the rights of a
number of States that have reasonable guidelines for who can carry a
concealed weapon. And under this bill, those guidelines all go away, so
the lowest common denominator carries the day. I don't think that's
good for public safety. And if you care about States' rights, it's not
goods for States' rights advocates either.
But I want to just spend my final moments just reminding my
colleagues that we have an economic crisis before us. There are 14
million Americans without jobs. There are millions more who are
underemployed.
We just came back from another congressional break. I don't know
where you went on your congressional break, but if you went back to
your district, I find it hard to believe that the most pressing issue
that faces your constituency is trying to figure out a way to make it
easier to carry concealed weapons from State to State to State. I just
don't believe that that's what people are talking about, certainly not
people in my congressional district. My people are talking about jobs.
When I'm at the airport, people are talking to me about jobs. That's
what they want us to focus on, not on reaffirming the national motto of
the United States as ``In God We Trust.'' I mean, we wasted a day on
that. It didn't need reaffirming. There it is right up there in gold
lettering above where the Speaker sits. It's on the back of the dollar
bill. Why did we have to spend time debating that?
And today we're not talking about jobs; we're talking about a gun
bill? Now, I know that the special interest lobbyist, the National
Rifle Association, they like this and they want us to move forward on
this. But put the special interests aside for a second and put your
constituents first.
What do our constituents want us to do? They want us to fix this
economy. We should be debating some of the components of the
President's jobs bill or a jobs bill of your own. But we should be
talking about how to put people back to work, not spending time here
talking about how to make it easier to carry a concealed weapon from
State to State to State. This is nuts that we're spending and wasting
this time on this issue.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia said a majority of Members
favor this bill; therefore, we should bring it to the floor. Well, you
know what? A majority of Members of this Chamber also support a bill to
hold China accountable for the fact that China manipulates its currency
and, as a result of that, if we actually held them accountable, we
could actually create an estimated 1 million to 1.5 million jobs in
America. A majority of Members of this House on both sides of the aisle
support that, yet we can't get that to the floor. That will help create
some jobs. I mean, there's bipartisan support for that. There's
bipartisan support for the components of the President's jobs bill, yet
you will not bring it to the floor. Instead, we're dealing with this
stuff.
Again, this may be good for pleasing the special interests, but it is
not what we should be doing in this Chamber. What's good for this
country is to focus on the economy. What's good for this country is to
focus on jobs.
I would say to my Republican friends, your indifference on the issue
of jobs is shameful, is absolutely
[[Page H7604]]
shameful. There are millions of Americans out of work, millions
underemployed, people worried about whether they can pay their
mortgages, pay their heating bills, pay their prescription drug bills,
whether they can afford to send their kids to college, and this is what
we're spending our time on? Give me a break.
We need to refocus in this Congress. We need to get our priorities
straight.
I'm going to tell you, at the top of the list is not reaffirming the
motto of this country. It's not abortion bills or gun bills. What's at
the top of the list is jobs. Let's put America back to work.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule and vote
``no'' on the underlying bill, and let's bring a jobs bill to this
floor.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I am always amazed at what goes on in
these Chambers. We hear from the other side of the aisle about talking
about jobs, even though this House has passed 20--20, count them--jobs
bills. If you don't believe it, read it.
We talk about issues about ``In God We Trust.'' I think it is
something that we should affirm here in America, about our belief in
God.
I believe that the Second Amendment is not a special interest group.
I believe the Second Amendment needs to be protected at all costs.
You've heard some in this House that would take away our right to even
carry or possess a firearm.
Madam Speaker, in 40 years in law enforcement, it wasn't just guns
that killed people; it was every object imaginable, from fists to feet
to pipes to kitchen knives and baseball bats.
Madam Speaker, this is about the ability for those that have a
legitimate carry permit to go across the State line and not be subject
to arrest, someone who makes an honest mistake by going across the
State line that doesn't have a reciprocity agreement with their current
State and they have a carry permit.
Madam Speaker, this is more about what's right with America in
regards to upholding our Second Amendment, our constitutional right.
And so those that are in favor of doing away with all types of guns, I
guess, it smacks that they disagree with our Founding Fathers and our
Second Amendment right.
Madam Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to
support it as well. H.R. 822 protects the rights of legal gun owners
throughout the United States.
I've heard this debate this afternoon about the dangers of gun crime.
I completely agree. Guns are dangerous tools that need to be treated
with respect. Guns can be used by people to kill other people. However,
what I saw in those 40 years as a cop is we need to talk about these in
broader terms. What we really need to do is talk about the difference
between legal and illegal guns.
Most people who use a gun to kill a human being are not just using a
gun they obtained legally, that they are licensed legally, that they
got a legal concealed-carry permit for. When you look at the numbers of
CCW permit holders that have actually violated the law, at least in the
State of Florida, it's .001 percent.
There are people that are criminals, and they're criminals simply for
having a firearm. Even in the State of Florida, a felon can't possess a
firearm. The discussion of what to do with these folks and how to keep
them from illegally possessing a firearm is another debate at another
time.
Today we're talking about one thing. We're talking about legal gun
owners to legally travel from one State to another that have a
concealed weapons permit. I support that effort, and that's why I'm a
proud cosponsor--and stand here today--of H.R. 822 and as the sponsor
of this rule, H. Res. 463.
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
strongly--I underline ``strongly''--bipartisan legislation.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________