[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 9 (Thursday, January 24, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S288-S291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Whitehouse, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Levin, Mr. Rockefeller, Ms.
Mikulski, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Menendez,
Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Murphy, Ms.
Warren, and Mr. Carper):
S. 150. A bill to regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right
to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Assault
Weapons Ban of 2013. This legislation is urgently needed to help end
the mass shootings that have devastated countless families and that
lead too many Americans to live their lives in fear.
Imagine that you receive a call from your child's school that there
has been a shooting. How would you feel? Panicked? Terror-stricken?
Helpless? Those were the feelings experienced by hundreds of parents
whose children attend Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Now imagine that, after rushing to the school, you receive the
terrible news that your child is not coming back. On December 14, 20
sets of parents heard those devastating words. Their lives will never
be the same.
I remain horrified by the mass murders that were committed that day
in Newtown. But I am even more incensed that our weak gun laws allow
mass killings to be carried out again and again in our country. Since
1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings across the United
States. Even worse, the rate of these shootings has been accelerating:
Twenty-five of these shootings have occurred since 2006, and 7 took
place in 2012.
These massacres don't stop--they just continue on and on. They have
become tragically common in our society.
For each shooting that occurs, there are parents and grandparents,
brothers and sisters, and aunts and uncles who have forever lost
someone special in their lives: In Newtown, 26 families will never hear
the laughter of their son or daughter again. In Aurora, Colorado, 12
people who attended a movie on a July night will never be able to enjoy
another night out. At Virginia Tech, 32 families will never see their
son or daughter again. In Tucson, AZ, 6 people
[[Page S289]]
never returned home from meeting their Congresswoman one Saturday
morning 2 years ago. My friend, Gabby Giffords, will never be the same.
The one common thread running through all of these shootings is that
the gunman used a semiautomatic assault weapon or large capacity
ammunition magazine or drum.
These military-style weapons have but one purpose: to kill as many
people as possible as quickly as possible. Since the last assault
weapons ban expired in 2004, over 350 people have been killed with
assault weapons. Over 450 have been injured.
I do not intend to sit by while these killings continue. That is why
today I am joining with my colleagues Senators Schumer, Durbin,
Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Levin, Rockefeller, Mikulski, Boxer, Reed,
Lautenberg, Menendez, Cardin, Gillibrand, Schatz, Murphy, and Warren to
introduce legislation to prohibit the sale, transfer, manufacture, and
importation of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding
devices that can accept more than 10 rounds.
As the members of this body know, we had an assault weapons ban in
place from 1994-2004. I was the author of that ban in the Senate, and
Senator Schumer carried that ban as the then-Chairman of the House
Crime Subcommittee.
The 1994 law was not perfect, but it was working when it expired in
2004. The supply of assault weapons was drying up, and crime committed
with those weapons was decreasing. Don't take my word for it;
scientific studies bear this about.
The 1994 law required the Justice Department to study and report on
its effectiveness. That study, completed in 1997, found that the ban
was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders,
holding all other factors equal.
The Justice Department sponsored a subsequent follow-on study in
2004, as the law was getting ready to expire. That study, carried out
by the University of Pennsylvania, found that by about 9 years after
the law took effect, the use of assault weapons in crime had declined
by more than 2/3--70 percent.
The Washington Post found that the percentage of firearms seized by
police in Virginia that had high-capacity magazines dropped
significantly during the ban. That figure has doubled since the ban
expired.
The Police Executive Research Forum found that 37 percent of police
departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals' use of
assault weapons since the ban expired.
Studies of state-level assault weapons bans also show that these bans
DO work. A study of Maryland's State ban on assault pistols found that
in the first six months after the ban was enacted, ``the Baltimore City
Police Department recovered 55 percent fewer assault pistols than would
have been expected had there been no ban.''
Let me just address for a moment the arguments of some of the
opponent of this legislation. They point to overall crime rates, and
say the 1994 ban did not affect them. But that overstates the purpose
of the ban. It was never intended to reduce all crime. It was intended
to reduce gun murders, and specifically mass shootings. And the
research found that it did just that.
A 6.7 percent decrease is not a complete solution. But if one of the
lives saved was your child, your husband, your sister, your parent, it
makes all the difference in the world. As President Obama has said, if
we can save even one life, then we must try. And a 6.7 percent decrease
in total gun murders--that is a lot more than one life.
Our police officers, the men and women who pledge their lives to
protect us, are particularly at risk from assault weapons. A study by
the Violence Policy Center found that, between 1998 and 2001, one in
five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with
an assault weapon.
Recognizing this, I am proud to have the support of the Major Cities
Chiefs of Police Association and several other organizations
representing law enforcement. Every day, they must stare down ever-
more-powerful military-style assault weapons.
The legislation we are introducing today will strengthen the 1994
law, allowing it to be even more effective:
The 1994 law prohibited semiautomatic weapons that could accept a
detachable magazine, and had at least two military characteristics. The
bill we are introducing today tightens this test to prohibit
semiautomatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns that can accept a
detachable magazine and have one military characteristic. One criticism
of the 1994 law was that its ``two-characteristic'' test was too easy
to ``work around'': a manufacture could simply remove one of the
characteristics, and the firearm was legal. The bill we are introducing
today will be much more difficult to work around.
The bill also accounts for specific ``work-arounds'' that the gun
industry developed to avoid the 1994 law and similar State bans.
The bill prohibits ``thumbhole stocks'', which manufacturers
developed to allow a stock to function like a pistol grip, which is a
standard military feature in State bans and the expired Federal ban.
It also prohibits ``bullet buttons'', a feature that certain
manufacturers developed to evade state restrictions on detachable
ammunition magazines. Some state laws describe a ``detachable
magazine'' as one that can be removed without the use of a tool. So
these gun manufacturers developed so-called ``bullet buttons'' that
allow magazines to be removed with the use of the simplest of tools,
such as a key, another bullet, or even a magnet. With these ``bullet
buttons'', what is supposed to be a fixed magazine becomes in practical
application a detachable magazine. Our bill contains tight language to
close this loophole.
Other changes to the bill include updating the list of specifically-
named military-style firearms that are prohibited, to account for new
models that have been developed since 1994. We now prohibit 158 weapons
by name.
The bill prohibits semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed
magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
The bill adds a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-
capacity magazines; and eliminates the 10-year sunset that allowed the
original law to expire.
Like the 1994 law, our legislation will prohibit large-capacity
ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
These large magazines and drums are so dangerous because they allow a
shooter to fire 15, 30, even 100 rounds without having to reload.
Now, let me tell you what the bill will not do.
It will not affect hunting or sporting firearms. Instead, the bill
protects legitimate hunters by protecting 2,258 specifically-named
firearms used for hunting or sporting purposes, and exempting antique,
manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
Let me be clear: the bill will not take away weapons you currently
own. Anybody who says otherwise is simply trying to deceive you.
Instead, the bill protects the rights of existing gun owners by
grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment.
An important change from the 1994 law is that we address the millions
of assault weapons that currently exist. While, as in 1994, they would
remain legal after our bill takes effect, any future sale or transfer
of such a weapon would require a background check to be conducted of
the purchaser or recipient. We do have an exception for intra-family
transfers. Keeping these powerful weapons out of the hands of known
criminals and people with adjudicated mental problems is a no-brainer.
The bill also imposes a safe storage requirement for grandfathered
firearms to ensure they don't get into the hands of people who would be
prohibited from possessing them.
While the bill permits the continued possession of high-capacity
ammunition magazines that are legally possessed on the date of
enactment, it would ban the future transfer of these magazines.
Finally, the bill allows local jurisdictions to use existing Federal
Byrne JAG grant money to support voluntary buy-back programs for
grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding
devices.
Opponents charge that this legislation impinges upon rights protected
by the Second Amendment. I recognize that the Supreme Court has clearly
held that there is an individual right to possess firearms that is
protected by
[[Page S290]]
the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and I respect that right.
However, the Supreme Court was also very clear that, like other
rights protected by other amendments in the Bill of Rights, this is not
an unlimited right. For instance, the First Amendment's protection of
free speech does not allow someone to falsely yell ``Fire!'' in a
crowded theater. Justice Scalia, the author of the majority opinion in
the seminal case of District of Columbia v. Heller, said this plainly:
``Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not
unlimited.''
Justice Scalia, no flaming liberal he, went on to say: ``We also
recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry
arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the
sorts of weapons protected were those `in common use at the time.' We
think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of `dangerous and unusual weapons.' ''
The muskets of the 18th Century bear little resemblance to the rapid-
fire military-style assault weapons today, and their single-shot
weapons are a far cry from the 100-round ammunition drum that was used
to inflict such carnage at a movie theater in Aurora, CO. These are
particularly dangerous weapons, which the Government is well within its
rights to regulate under the Second Amendment and the Heller decision.
The Second Amendment protects an individual's ability to own a weapon;
it does not protect their ability to own any weapon. Any reasonable
person would recognize limitations on this right: an individual should
not own a nuclear weapon, they should not own a rocket launcher, and
they should not own a military-style assault weapon.
Let me conclude with these thoughts:
The most important duty that government has to its citizens is to
provide for their safety.
When 20 kindergarteners are slaughtered by an assault weapon, our
government has failed to provide for their safety.
When 12 people are gunned down in a movie theater by an assault
weapon, our government has failed to provide for their safety.
The firearms used in these massacres are weapons of war. They are
weapons designed to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest
period of time. We should be outraged by how easy it is for the
perpetrators of these horrific crimes to purchase powerful weapons.
Let me say it as plainly as I can: weapons of war do not belong on
our streets, in our schools, in our malls, in our theaters, or in our
workplaces.
We know the common denominator in these deadly massacres and these
daily shootings: easy access to killing machines designed for the
battlefield. The circumstances may differ, but the one constant is
always the guns.
These weapons not only take away the lives of our loved ones. They
also take away our freedom--our freedom to live without fear.
When a child is fearful of walking down the street outside his home,
he has lost his freedom.
When Americans wonder whether the next massacre with an assault
weapon will take place in their town, they have lost their freedom.
I ask all of my colleagues to join me in this fight.
Join with our chiefs of police who say ``no'' to assault weapons.
Join with teachers from across our nation who say ``no'' to assault
weapons.
Join with the emergency room doctors and medical professionals from
every corner of our country who say ``no'' to assault weapons.
Join with clergy from all denominations who say ``no'' to assault
weapons.
Join with the 58 percent of Americans who support an Assault Weapons
Ban.
I am proud that the bill we are introducing has been endorsed by so
many organizations and public officials:
Law Enforcement: International Association of Campus Law Enforcement
Administrators; International Association of Chiefs of Police; Major
Cities Chiefs Association; National Law Enforcement Partnership to
Prevent Gun Violence; Police Foundation; Women in Federal Law
Enforcement; Charlie Beck, Chief, Los Angeles Police Department; Lee
Baca, Sheriff, Los Angeles County; Scott Knight, Chief of Police,
Chaska Police Department (MN), and former chair, Firearms Committee,
International Association of Chiefs of Police; and Bill Lansdowne,
Police Chief, San Diego;
Localities: U.S. Conference of Mayors; Boston City Council; City of
Stockton (CA); County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors; Ventura
County Board of Supervisors (CA); Mayor David Glass, Petaluma, CA;
Mayor Emmett O'Donnell, Tiburon, CA; Mayor Jill Hunter, Saratoga, CA;
Mayor Hilary Bryant, Santa Cruz, CA; Mayor Bob Filner, San Diego, CA;
Mayor Bob Foster, Long Beach, CA; Mayor Michael Harris, Pleasant Hill,
CA; Mayor Kevin Johnson, Sacramento, CA; Mayor Edwin M. Lee, San
Francisco, CA; Mayor Jean Quan, Oakland, CA; Mayor Chuck Reed, San
Jose, CA; Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa, Los Angeles, CA;
Superintendent Anthony Smith, Oakland Unified School District; Mayor
Miguel Pulido, Santa Ana, CA; City of Lemon Grove; Mayor Cheryl Cox,
Chula Vista, CA; San Diego Unified School District; City of Calabasas;
City of Ventura; City of Los Angeles; City of West Hollywood; Mayor Rob
Schroder, Martinez, CA; and Mayor Amanda Gilmore, Alameda, CA;
Gun Safety: Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; Coalition to Stop
Gun Violence; Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Mayors Against
Illegal Guns; Violence Policy Center; and Washington CeaseFire;
Education/Child Welfare: American Academy of Pediatrics; American
Federation of Teachers; Boys & Girls Clubs of America; Child Welfare
League of America; Children's Defense Fund; Every Child Matters; Moms
Rising; National Association of Social Workers; National PTA; National
Education Association; and 20 Children;
Religious Community: African Methodist Episcopal Church; Alliance of
Baptists; American Baptist Churches of the South; American Baptist Home
Mission Societies; American Friends Service Committee; Baptist Peace
Fellowship of North America; Camp Brotherhood; Catholic Charities USA;
Catholic Health Association; Catholic Health Initiatives; Catholics in
Alliance for the Common Good; Catholics United; Church of the Brethren;
Church Women United, Inc.; Conference of Major Superiors of Men;
Disciples Home Missions, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ);
Dominican Sisters of Peace; FaithsAgainstGunViolence.org; Franciscan
Action Network; Friends Committee on National Legislation; Health
Ministries Association; Heeding God's Call; Hindu American Foundation;
Interfaith Alliance of Idaho; Islamic Society of North America; Jewish
Council for Public Affairs; Jewish Reconstructionist Movement;
Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Mennonite Central Committee,
Washington Office; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good
Shepherd; National Council of Churches; National Episcopal Health
Ministries; NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; Pax
Christi USA; PICO Network Lifelines to Healing; Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.) Office of Public Witness; Progressive National Baptist
Convention; Rabbinical Assembly; Religious Action Center of Reform
Judaism; San Francisco Interfaith Council; Sikh Council on Religion and
Education, USA; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas; Sojourners; Unitarian
Universalist Association of Congregations; United Church of Christ;
United Methodist Church; United Methodist Women; United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Domestic Justice and Human
Development; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Washington
National Cathedral; and Women of Reform Judaism;
Medical Community: American Academy of Pediatrics; American Congress
of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American College of Surgeons;
American Public Health Association; Doctors for America; and National
Association of School Nurses;
Other Organizations: Alliance for Business Leadership; American Bar
Association; Black American Political Association of California;
Grandmothers for Peace International; National Parks Conservation
Association; Sierra Club; TASH; Viet Nam Veterans in the Media;
VoteVets.org; and Washington Office on Latin America.
But we should have no illusions. This will be a big fight.
[[Page S291]]
It will be an uphill battle--all the way. I know this.
But we need to ask ourselves:
Do we let the gun industry take over and dictate policy to this
country? Do we let those who profit from increasing sales of these
military style-weapons prevent us from taking commonsense steps to stop
the carnage?
Or should we empower our elected representatives to vote their
conscience based on their experience, based on their sense of right and
wrong and based on their need to protect their schools, their malls,
their workplaces and their businesses?
This legislation is my life's goal. As long as I am a member of the
Senate, I will work night and day to pass this bill into law. No matter
how long it takes, I will fight until assault weapons are taken off our
streets.
Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the
safety of all. That is not the America that our founding fathers
envisioned. And that is not the America I want my children and
grandchildren to live in.
So I ask everyone watching at home: please get involved and stay
involved.
The success or failure of this bill depends not on me, but on you. If
the American people rise up and demand action from their elected
officials, we will be victorious. If the American people say ``no'' to
military-style assault weapons, we will rid our Nation of this scourge.
Please, talk to your senator and your member of Congress.
______