[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 176 (Thursday, November 17, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2082]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2011

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. LAURA RICHARDSON

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 16, 2011

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union had under consideration 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.

  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
822, the proposed National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. I 
call on my colleagues to join me in rejecting this ill-considered and 
unwise legislation which will effectively force all states to accept 
the lowest-common-standard in concealed carry laws. Passage of this 
bill is reckless and undeniably a threat to public safety.
  This law would add an unnecessary burden on police officers who risk 
their lives every day in traffic stops and other risky situations. It 
would make it nearly impossible for them to be able to determine 
whether the guns they encounter are legal or not.
  The very likely and viable threats posed to public safety if this 
legislation passes are egregious. This legislation will do away with 
the strict gun laws each state has established according to its 
constituent composition and needs and empower dangerous individuals to 
carry concealed, loaded guns in states where they would not qualify for 
a local permit.
  California has one of the most stringent gun laws in the Nation, and 
there is a reason for that. California had the highest number of gun 
murders in the Nation last year, 1,257, which is 69 percent of all 
murders that year and equivalent to 3.37 per 100,000 people in the 
state.
  A very real example of what this legislation will do is a person 
convicted of domestic violence and not allowed to possess, let alone 
carry a concealed weapon in California, can cross state lines into a 
state that does not have the same restrictions, receive a permit for a 
gun, then cross states lines back into California and exact revenge 
against his victim.
  Proponents against gun laws and restrictions constantly chime, ``Guns 
don't kill people. People kill people.'' That may be the case, but a 
person with a gun can kill another much more easily than a person 
without one. FBI crime statistics based on reports to FBI bureau and 
local law enforcement show that in 2010, the latest year for which 
detailed statistics are available, there were 12,996 murders in the 
U.S.; of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms.
  This dangerous bill will allow a resident of a state with strict 
concealed weapon permitting standards to simply go to and obtain a 
permit in a state with minimal standards, then head back home and carry 
a concealed weapon in a state that would have never allowed him to do 
so in the first place.
  If ever you needed a concrete example of why this is such an ill-
conceived and dangerous piece of legislation for both the public and 
law enforcement, consider the recent testimony of Philadelphia Police 
Commissioner Charles Ramsey before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. The Police Commissioner 
testified that in 2005, a man named Marqus Hill had his concealed carry 
permit revoked by Philadelphia Police after he had been charged with 
attempted murder. Mr. Hill later traveled to Florida, got a new permit 
despite his record, used his Florida permit to carry a loaded gun into 
Philadelphia, and later shot a teenager thirteen times in the chest, 
killing him in the street.
  Mr. Chair, the ramifications of such legislation do not stop there. 
It would also make it easier for gun traffickers to move loaded guns 
through urban city streets where police officers are already having a 
difficult time combating crime and violence. It will be nearly 
impossible for police to verify the validity of 49 different carry 
permits.
  Policing our streets and confronting the risks inherent in even 
routine traffic stops is already perilous enough. Ambiguity as to the 
legality of firearm possession could lead to confusion among police 
officers that could result in catastrophic incidents. Congress should 
be working to make the job of law enforcement officers more, not less, 
safe.
  Today, states establish standards for carrying concealed, loaded 
handguns in public places that include criteria beyond an applicant's 
ability to pass a federal background check. For example, at least 38 
states prevent people convicted of certain violent crimes from 
obtaining carry permits, 14 states require applicants to demonstrate 
good character to obtain a carry permit, and about half of states grant 
law enforcement discretion to deny a permit. The National Right-to-
Carry Reciprocity Act would gut these standards and empower dangerous 
individuals to carry concealed, loaded guns in states where they would 
not qualify for a local permit.
  We see firsthand the tragedies that can unfold when guns end up in 
the hands of criminals, the seriously mentally ill, domestic violence 
offenders and other dangerous people. Let us not forget the tragedy 
earlier this year in Tucson, Arizona. Statistics show that every year, 
more than 12,000 gun murders are committed in big cities and small 
towns throughout the United States.
  States and localities should have the right to determine who is 
eligible to carry firearms in their communities. It is essential that 
state, local and tribal governments maintain the ability to legislate 
concealed carry laws that best fit the needs of their communities.
  H.R. 822 is a dangerous piece of legislation that will create a very 
real threat to public safety. In opposing this reckless piece of 
legislation, I stand with the people of my home state of California. I 
stand with domestic violence prevention advocates. I stand with law 
enforcement across the Nation and our local police who risk their lives 
every day to protect the public. I will vote against H.R. 822 and I 
urge all members of the House to do likewise. For the foregoing reasons 
I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 822 and allow states to continue to 
decide for themselves and set their own standards regarding who can 
carry hidden, loaded guns in their communities.

                          ____________________