[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 112 (Monday, June 28, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H3226-H3232]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEFENDING RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2021, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
General Leave
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today in hosting a
Special Order on the Second Amendment, which is both near and dear to
my heart and which is also near and dear to the many millions of
Americans who cherish their rights and freedoms.
The Second Amendment says: ``A well regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.''
Though it brings me great joy to talk at length about the Second
Amendment and the foresight our Founding Fathers had to enshrine this
God-given right into the U.S. Constitution, I regret that lawmakers
today must still rise to defend it, a matter that was settled 230 years
ago.
We must still do this because the Second Amendment is, again, under
direct and constant attack from not just gun control activist groups
and the left, but now from our very own government within the executive
branch.
The Founding Fathers enumerated our right to keep and bear arms in
the Bill of Rights to ensure the people had the ability to protect
themselves from a treacherous government that sought tyranny over
democracy.
We know, Madam Speaker, and our Founding Fathers knew as well, that
the first step toward tyranny is to disarm the citizenry.
The irony is not lost on me that the Democrats in control today are
trying to do everything they can to gain power and keep power through
rule changes and enacting sweeping laws that will forever tilt the
scales of that power in their favor.
{time} 2000
It was announced just this past week that Republicans and Democrats
were able to strike a deal on an infrastructure plan which was heralded
as great news and no easy feat in this partisan body. But then the news
broke that the Democrats wanted to add to the bipartisan agreement a
vast human infrastructure proposal. What is human infrastructure?
So now infrastructure becomes redefined to be anything they want it
to be. So if you cannot get something done legitimately via legislation
because you don't have the votes, then the new tactic is to accomplish
it by redefinition. Just redefine the meaning of the word. So when does
this act of redefining everything as we know it stop?
Madam Speaker, I fear that it won't, and I see that to be true when
it comes to attacks on the Second Amendment, as the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms' newly proposed rules on the definition of a
frame or receiver and on pistol stabilizing braces makes that
abundantly clear. Through these proposed regulations, the
administration is attempting to unilaterally redefine what constitutes
a firearm under Federal law and in doing so, restrict the rights of
law-abiding gun owners.
In some cases, the courts have not ruled in ATF's way, so ATF wants
to change the rules, so the courts have to
[[Page H3227]]
abide by new regulations more favorable to them. The ATF wants to
increase their influence and authority and do it by edict, making it
harder on law-abiding citizens to own firearms. They want a new
definition for a firearm, one that will greatly expand its meaning and
give ATF immense additional authority.
It was Congress who created the law that defines a firearm. ATF does
not have that authority. We have a separation of powers issue here that
ATF wants to ignore. It seems they don't want the representatives of
the people to have a say. No, ATF wants to make the change themselves
and thereby increase their own power. This is wrong thinking and it is
dangerous.
Before I go further, let me pause for a second and review the
legislative history of our key gun laws.
Congress passed the National Firearms Act, or NFA, in 1934; the Gun
Control Act, or GCA, in 1968; and the Firearms Owners' Protection Act
in 1986. While two of these acts have since been amended, with the GCA
amending portions of the NFA, the current definition of the term
``firearm'' can be found in the GCA under 18 U.S.C. 921 and has been
effectively used for over 50 years.
But the ATF has decided to expand its authority by proposing broad
and arbitrary definitions of industry terms including some that are not
even referenced in the definition section of the current law, including
the terms, ``privately made firearm,'' and ``complete weapon.''
It is one thing for an agency to use its regulatory authority to
clarify terms included in statute for purposes of implementation, but
it is clear to me that the AFT has overstepped its authorities by
legislating new terms not even referenced in the statute.
Under one of the proposed new regulations, a dummy receiver or an 80
percent lower would now be considered a firearm as it would be covered
by the grossly expanded definition of a frame or receiver.
As you can see in the illustration right here, you see the difference
between the two. The top is actually functional. The other one on the
bottom is a solid block of metal with no ability to accept a firing
mechanism, no hammer, no trigger, no selector. And so it is completely
nonfunctional.
Now, let's look at those same two from the top-down view. Do you see
the difference right here? The bottom one is a solid block of metal,
but the top has been machined and has places for a trigger and a hammer
and a selector. To make the bottom one work, you have to have the tools
and the skill of a manufacturer.
So let's take a closer look at the dummy receiver, Madam Speaker,
right here. This solid block of metal doesn't look like a firearm to me
and it certainly doesn't work like one either. There is not even a hole
right down here for a trigger. The ATF, in its own rule, noted that
Congress recognized that regulation of all firearm parts was
impractical back when this body was debating the GCA in 1968.
And in fact, Congress moved to make the regulation of the firearms
industry more efficient and functional by striking language in the term
``firearm,'' that would have resulted in regulation of any part or
parts of a firearm. Just like the bolt in the upper receiver assembly
pictured right here, they are not firearms now. But ATF wants to make
this a firearm.
But there is another aspect of this redefinition that will go
completely unnoticed unless it is challenged, and that is taxation. The
more pieces and parts the ATF can call firearms, the more excise tax
they can collect. Let that sink in for a minute. Yes, this is another
tax hidden in the price of a firearm.
Every firearm manufacturer pays a 10 or 11 percent excise tax to the
ATF based on the invoice price when they sell a firearm to a dealer. So
through this redefinition, the government is going to make more tax
money on the backs of law-abiding citizens. And will Congress have
passed a new law to increase taxes? No. The ATF will have created a new
stream of tax revenue by simply changing the definition of a firearm
frame or receiver. More taxation at the whim of ATF.
The Second Amendment recognizes the right endowed by our creator and
codifies it into law. Taxation of a constitutional right is
unconstitutional. But if this redefinition is allowed to stand, then
this will only be the beginning of more and more taxation on citizens'
gun rights. ATF knows that they cannot make the law more stringent
without action by Congress, and they know that such support does not
exist in Congress. So they try a flanking maneuver and end run to
bypass the legislative branch.
They believe that they, along with gun control activists like David
Chipman, can use the authority of the ATF, a law enforcement agency, as
a political pawn to carry out their anti-Second Amendment agenda.
Madam Speaker, that is exactly what the ATF is doing, as we speak.
One day you have a perfectly legal firearm or part, the next day you
wake up and your firearm is no longer legal as defined by ATF. Such
legality must be left to Congress to decide as it has done through the
legislation I previously referenced; not decided by unelected Federal
bureaucrats, bureaucrats that may soon be led by a radical gun control
activist named David Chipman, unless my colleagues in the Senate oppose
his nomination, and I trust they will.
I fear, Madam Speaker, that if my Senate counterparts do not thwart
his nomination, we will have more redefining of words led by a
partisan, radical gun control activist. I call it legislation by
redefinition.
But this abuse of power can be stopped, Madam Speaker, and I invite
you to join me in defending our rights by submitting comments directly
to the ATF through the Federal Register notice. The two proposed rules
I have referenced so far are available online for the public to read
and have collectively received more than 180,000 comments so far.
One rule is called, ``Definition of `Frame or Receiver' and
Identification of Firearms.'' The other rule is called, ``Factoring
Criteria for Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing Braces'.''
Madam Speaker, I believe all Americans, especially gun owners, should
inform themselves of the proposed changes and share their thoughts
directly with the ATF through the public comment opportunity at
www.regulations.gov. It is written right here.
The public comment period will last for just a few more weeks, and I
would love to see the total number of submitted comments hit half a
million for each proposed rule. I think every single member of this
body agrees with my belief that criminals who misuse firearms and
perpetuate violent crimes should be held accountable for their actions.
And I also hope my colleagues would concur with my belief that law-
abiding firearm owners should not be punished because of the illegal
acts of a few who knowingly commit evil acts.
But rather than focusing their efforts on punishing criminals who use
firearms in the commission of a crime, my Democratic colleagues have,
instead, chosen again and again to slowly chip away at the Second
Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446 are prime examples of Democrat-led efforts to
curtail Americans' Second Amendment rights. That is why I introduced
H.R. 1787, the Ensuring SAFETY Act which would mandate the Federal
Government respond to a background check in three calendar days and not
allow them to delay background checks potentially indefinitely as
happened during the pandemic.
Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to have so many of my colleagues join me
in standing before you today to speak in defense of the Constitution
and the Second Amendment.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Hudson), our conference secretary, from the Eighth Congressional
District.
Mr. HUDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise, a proud defender of our rights as
guaranteed in the Second Amendment.
Ever since I was a little boy, my grandfather taught me the right way
to handle a gun. I have loved the outdoors and appreciate the freedom
that comes from our Second Amendment.
As an adult, I came to understand the Second Amendment is the right
that allows us to defend all of our other rights. Unfortunately, the
Biden administration has declared war on the Second Amendment. In just
the past 6 months, the President and my colleagues across the aisle
have pushed
[[Page H3228]]
numerous gun control policies that would have zero impact on violence
but threaten law-abiding citizens.
The most recent example is a proposed rule from the ATF to impose a
new tax and ban on stabilizing braces. This proposed regulation
jeopardizes the right of law-abiding gun owners, including disabled
combat veterans who rely on these braces. In fact, these braces were
invented to assist disabled veterans.
Should this rule go into effect, a disabled veteran who has chosen
the best brace for their disability is now breaking the law unless they
turn in or destroy the firearm, destroy the brace, or pay a $200 tax.
This radical policy could make millions of law-abiding citizens into
felons overnight.
Recently, I led 140 Members of Congress to call on the ATF to
withdraw that regulation. Forty-eight Senators also joined this effort,
and we are united in pushing back against this extreme gun control
agenda. Moms and dads, sons and daughters, and, yes, disabled
veterans--every law-abiding American should have the right to protect
themselves and exercise their rights as enshrined in our Constitution.
That is why I have also been a leader on expanding concealed carry
reciprocity across our country. As the author of H.R. 38, the Concealed
Carry Reciprocity Act, I am working to ensure law-abiding concealed
carry permit holders do not become criminals when they cross an
invisible State line. It is common sense. Due, in part, to rising crime
sweeping our Nation, legal gun ownership has reached record highs,
making H.R. 38 needed now more than ever. These millions of Americans
looking to defend themselves and their families deserve to have their
rights respected and protected.
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleagues who say we must do more to
protect our schools and our communities, but the answer is never taking
guns away from law-abiding citizens. It is supporting good police
officers, hardening our schools, building on the STOP School Violence
Act, and investing in mental healthcare. These are all accomplishments
of the last Republican House majority.
I hope my colleagues across the aisle will work with me to build on
these solutions which should be overwhelmingly bipartisan. Together, we
can make real change without dismantling the Second Amendment.
Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Andrew Clyde for his
leadership on defending our Second Amendment, and for hosting this
excellent Special Order tonight.
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from North Carolina
(Mr. Hudson) for introducing the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, a
bill that I am proud to support as a cosponsor.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls), my
good friend from Texas' 22.
Mr. NEHLS. Madam Speaker, crime is rising across the country. Double-
digit increases in violent crime have been seen in cities across our
country; liberal cities, no less, that chose to defund their police.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here. When you defund the
police, you have less police. And less police means more criminals on
the streets.
Rather than address the poor policy decisions that have led to this
increase in violent crime, like defunding police, Democrats are
attempting to deflect blame on to gun owners. Law-abiding gun owners in
this country are frequently attacked by the radical left as being the
source of the gun violence problem. The left wants to tell them what
guns they can own and how they should be able to purchase them.
As a former county sheriff, I know firsthand how important gun
ownership is. When someone lives in a remote part of the country, they
can't afford to wait for a 20-minute law enforcement response time in
the event of a home invasion. That person needs quick access to a
firearm to defend themselves and their loved ones. And that is exactly
what legal gun ownership is about, defending one's liberty from would-
be attackers.
Law-abiding gun owners are not the source of the problem with gun
crimes across the country. It is criminals who have no regard for the
law. Taking away or limiting a law-abiding citizen's access to legally
purchasing a firearm will only hurt law-abiding citizens. We must
protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. It is a
foundational right of our Republic and must not be infringed.
Republicans in the House must stand firm as the radical left
continues their assault. If we lose the Second Amendment, all others
will be in jeopardy. ``Shall not be infringed.'' It is that simple.
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Nehls for his
comments. He is truly a staunch supporter of law enforcement, as am I.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter),
from my home State, who represents Georgia's First District.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to show my support for the Second
Amendment and draw attention to its importance. I would like to start
by emphasizing a line from the Second Amendment. `` . . . the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''
Let me repeat that: `` . . . shall not be infringed.'' I emphasize
this point because today there are many efforts to infringe and abridge
this essential right. There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding the
Second Amendment, but let me make it clear, the Second Amendment
enshrines the right to self-protection in defense of liberty for all
Americans.
The right to protect yourself is not given to us by our government.
As part of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment was not intended to
comprehensively define the scope of our right to bear arms. Rather, it
serves as a prohibition on certain actions our government can take to
infringe on that righ
{time} 2015
The Biden administration, however, misunderstands this point. In a
statement last week, the White House stated that the Second Amendment
limits the type of people who could own a gun. Further, it continues to
seek to restrain Americans' rights through other actions.
A recent example is the administration's move to strictly regulate
stabilizing braces that have allowed disabled individuals to more
easily enjoy their constitutionally protected right.
Americans bought 15.1 million guns during the 7-month period from
March through September of 2020, which was a 91 percent leap from the
same period in 2019. The FBI also processed more background checks for
gun purchases in just the first 9 months of 2020 than it had for any
previous full year.
Americans want to be safer, and guns give them that sense of
security. In spite of that fact, my colleagues across the aisle have
made it their mission to restrict this liberty in the name of safety.
However, there is no link between the number of guns and gun violence
in the U.S. The number of guns in America rose nearly 50 percent
between 1993 and 2013. During the same period, gun homicides fell by
nearly 50 percent.
In fact, violent crime has been decreasing for decades, despite an
increase last year, during which we also saw calls for defunding the
police. In 2019, the violent crime rate fell to the second lowest total
rate since 1971, and the murder rate was less than half of what it was
at the 1980 peak.
Restricting the Second Amendment is simply not the answer. This
right, preserved in our Constitution generations ago, cannot be taken
away from ourselves and future generations. We must protect from
intrusions on our right to protect ourselves, no matter how hard the
left works to strip us of this principle.
Madam Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in standing up
for our Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Carter for his
inspiring words.
Madam Speaker, I ask this: If we grant an 18-year-old individual the
right to cast a vote, which decides the fate of our Nation, and can ask
them to serve in our Armed Forces, should we not also grant that
individual the right to keep and bear arms, which is granted by the
Constitution?
I am proud to support a bill introduced by my friend from Kentucky,
Mr.
[[Page H3229]]
Massie, which would restore Second Amendment rights to individuals of
voting age.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the good gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Massie).
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I
appreciate his unwavering support for the Second Amendment.
Madam Speaker, I rise today because, just last week, our President of
this country spoke about using the nuclear option. He wasn't talking
about getting rid of the 60-vote rule in the Senate. He was actually
contemplating a nuclear conflagration with the citizens of this
country, with the patriots of this country. He said they should get F-
15s and nuclear weapons if they wanted to keep this government in
check.
Those aren't the words of George Washington. Those would be the words
of King George.
Imagine if a dictator--just imagine the dictator of North Korea or
the despot who runs Iran had muttered or stuttered or uttered these
words like our President would and did. There would be an international
outcry today to have that dictator removed.
We need to hold our chief executive accountable for these words. And
our chief executive of this country would do well to understand what
the Second Amendment is really about. It is about keeping an
overzealous executive in check. It is about securing all of the other
liberties in this constitution. It is about the patriots who are
willing to tell the government: We are in charge.
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Massie for those
inspiring words.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the good gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his
conviction and his dedication to this issue and getting us this
opportunity for all of us to share that.
I appreciate the remarks from my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky.
I couldn't agree more about how offensive what we heard from the
President of the United States with respect to our Second Amendment
protected rights; and then coming in and talking about the foolishness
of our desire to have our Second Amendment rights protected when, in
fact, we would be up against F-15s and potential nuclear weapons.
Imagine the absurdity of having the President of the United States
say that.
Meanwhile, I live in Austin, Texas, where currently crime rates are
skyrocketing. Murder rates almost double.
Why might that be?
The President of the United States gave a speech allegedly about
crime.
Did he talk about the defunding of police? Did he talk about the $150
million stripped out of the budget in Austin, Texas?
How about Oakland right now, doubling down on their foolish defunding
of the police?
It wasn't enough to take $15 million out of it last time, and now
seeing murder rates skyrocket. They are now doubling down for another
$16 million. They think that is going to solve their problems.
The genius of the current administration, my Democrats on the other
side of the aisle, is to take police off the streets and then come
after our Second Amendment rights.
How about the border of Texas?
The border of Texas is wide open with cartels operating fully from
the Gulf of Mexico all the way up through Big Bend. They have
operational control of our border. We have images of gunmen coming
across the Rio Grande. We have humans being sold into sex trafficking
and human trafficking. We have 7,500 pounds of fentanyl pouring across
our border; Americans dying in this opioid epidemic. We have Americans
in danger.
And what do Democrats want to do?
Take away our Second Amendment rights to defend ourselves as they
defund police and empower cartels.
That is your Democratic Party, ladies and gentlemen. They want you to
be in danger. They want you to have to suffer the consequences of their
rote incompetence and disbelief in your ability to take care of your
own families and your communities.
The President of the United States actually said the other day that,
in fact, you are not allowed to have a cannon.
Well, you know what?
In Texas, there was a moment when we had a cannon and we looked at
the Mexicans and we said: Come and take it, in 1835.
And that is what I say to the President of the United States: Come
and take it, because it is our Second Amendment rights and we are going
to defend ourselves.
And when he asks why we need 20 rounds of ammo, maybe it is because
he is saying that he wants to come after the American people with F-15s
and nuclear weapons.
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 21 for his
passionate defense of our Second Amendment rights.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).
Mr. MAST. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I would just say this: Number one, I think you would
do well to turn off the phone and pay attention to this Special Order
while you have the honor of presiding over the floor of the House of
Representatives. The words being spoken are important here.
I would just share a brief anecdote with you, and it is this: I have
spent many nights in combat. And like many of my friends, helmet,
night-vision optics, lots of Velcro camo, backpack. I was a bomb
technician, so I normally carried 30, 40 pounds of explosives. I had my
side arm. I had my carbine. I had a metal detector and a number of
other things. I normally had about 10 magazines across the front of my
vest. And we were heavy. We were carrying a lot of weight on any given
night. And every single night, both myself and my brothers in arms
would decide how many more magazines we were going to put into our
backpacks, into our kits, because we always felt that the dumbest
reason for any of us to die would be for a lack of shooting back.
And I think that is something that would, in turn, be one of the
dumbest reasons for any law-abiding American to bring about their
death, would be because they can't shoot back.
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those inspiring
words. As a fellow combat veteran, I honor his service and I honor his
speech this evening.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney),
who sent out an amicus brief, and I was proud to cosponsor that brief.
I thank her for defending our Second Amendment in that brief.
Ms. TENNEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for hosting this
great Special Order on a fundamental right.
Madam Speaker, our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for
self-protection is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution
and the Bill of Rights.
However, many States, including my own home State of New York, home
to Remington Arms, of all places, unconstitutionally restricts our
right to carry concealed outside of our home. In most New York
jurisdictions, an applicant must justify their need for such a
concealed carry permit.
Despite the plain words of the Second Amendment enshrined for
centuries in the Bill of Rights, State and local authorities in New
York continue to reject applications for law-abiding Americans for
entirely arbitrary reasons or for no reason at all. States like
California and Massachusetts do exactly the same thing.
This arbitrary standard must be rejected. That is why I am leading
the amicus brief for an upcoming U.S. Supreme Court, New York State
Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett. This case will decide if New
York's burdensome concealed carry law violates the Second Amendment.
A little background on the case: In 2016, Rensselaer County, New
York, officials denied the concealed carry permit of Robert Nash for
the purpose of self-defense. Later, in 2018, they also denied the
concealed carry application of Brandon Koch for the same reason.
Both these individuals are honorable, upstanding, and law-abiding
citizens. They met every requirement of New York's rigorous concealed
carry license application. These two men simply applied for a concealed
carry permit for personal protection after a rash of robberies in their
neighborhoods and their community.
[[Page H3230]]
New York State is now witnessing the highest crime rate that we have
had in the history of our State. However, even after all of that, the
county licensing officers did not believe that self-defense was a valid
exercise of constitutional rights under the Second Amendment.
The gun control measures being considered by the Supreme Court in
this key case amount to a blanket ban on the right to keep and bear
arms outside the home. The amicus brief I am submitting, with the
support of more than 50 Members of the House of Representatives so far,
defends citizens' rights against elected officials and government
bureaucrats who are attempting to deny these fundamental constitutional
rights to all Americans.
We argue that it is unconstitutional for the government to apply a
balancing test for a fundamental right such as the Second Amendment
under our Constitution. The Bill of Rights was drafted and passed to
protect citizens from government overreach.
It is worth noting that New York is an original colony with a very
strong history of citizens who stood up for our basic rights. In 1788
and 1789, before and during the Constitutional Convention and the
founding of our Federal Constitution, New York's leaders refused to
sign on to our Federal Constitution until--until--the Bill of Rights
was added to our founding document. They knew how important Second
Amendment rights were then, and how important they were to a self-
governing constitutional Republic such as ours.
The success of the plaintiff, law-abiding gun owners in this case,
will end this improper interpretation of our constitutional right to
keep and bear arms, and will be the first major pro-Second Amendment
decision considered by the U.S. Supreme Court since Heller v. District
of Columbia.
Madam Speaker, I urge all Members who take their oath to uphold the
Constitution seriously to sign on to this amicus brief. Together, we
can all protect our Second Amendment rights for all Americans.
I, again, want to thank Mr. Clyde for his tenacious advocacy on
behalf of our God-given constitutional rights, and all of my colleagues
here today who are standing up for all Americans.
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
her inspiring words and her work on this very important amicus brief.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs.
Boebert), a fiery defender of our Second Amendment because she knows
exactly what is at stake.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Clyde), for putting this together.
Madam Speaker, I want to begin this evening by thanking my Democrat
colleagues for their outstanding work in encouraging millions of
Americans to celebrate their Second Amendment rights by purchasing
their first, second, or even 100th firearm.
From the last riots in cities across America, to Biden's threat to
strip away our basic constitutional rights, Democrats are
singlehandedly responsible for the sale of tens of millions of
firearms.
{time} 2030
Bravo. Well done. I hear that the interest has begun to peak when it
comes to the sale of F-15s.
Now, I have some questions for these freedom-haters. When are you
going to call on the Chief Executive, the basement dweller, to hold his
own son accountable for his gun crimes? Hunter Biden lied on a Federal
firearms application, which is punishable by up to 10 years and a
$250,000 fine, of which 10 percent will not be going to the big guy.
Rules for thee but not for my crackhead, parmesan-smoking, gun
criminal son?
What about the disposal of Hunter Biden's gun in a back-ally
dumpster? Why was the Secret Service involved in locating this firearm?
Can you just imagine, for half a second, if Donald Trump, Jr., was
involved in firearms crimes, and his dad ordered the Secret Service to
cover it up?
That is just the start of the hypocrisy. Biden will call widely
purchased firearms ``weapons of war,'' but then he will tell you that
you need an F-15 or a nuke to keep the Federal Government in check. He
will target so-called ``merchants of death'' but celebrate the 600
abortion clinics across America. This regime will encourage riots,
defund the police, and try to take away Americans' rights to self-
defense.
Madam Speaker, the American people are not on board with the Biden
regime's hypocritical gun-grabbing. Instead, they are buying guns at a
record rate. So my colleagues from the other side, they can keep
running their mouths, and we will keep adding to our arsenals.
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado's
Third District for her excellent remarks and reminding us of the
investigation that needs to be initiated on the purchase of a firearm
by Hunter Biden, a 4473 that was not filled out correctly, which is a
violation of law.
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), representing
Pennsylvania's 10th District.
Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for hosting us this
evening.
Every single person here laments the crime that is occurring in our
country, the people that lose their lives to crime. Every single one of
us laments that, especially when it comes to the inability to defend
yourself or your family. It is unacceptable; it is horrific.
Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle, the
Democrats, want to defund the police and disarm America, essentially
destroying the Constitution.
Now, they will tell you it is all about safety, because they, too,
lament these lost lives as we do. But ladies and gentlemen, it is not
really about safety; it is about control.
Now, there is a country close to us that has pretty strict gun
control. There is one gun store in the country to our south, one, where
you can buy a gun legally. The country is Mexico. Their homicide rate
is five to six times that of the United States.
Remember, we lament every single lost life, especially those where
people cannot defend themselves.
But that is what this is about. My friends on the other side of the
aisle want to destroy the Constitution to control you.
Like I said, we lament every single lost life. In Mexico, you can
barely own a firearm legally, with five or six times the murder rate.
What is happening in the United States of America? We are defunding
the police and taking the rights and the ability of law-abiding
citizens away from them to defend themselves in these cities: Chicago,
New York City, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Detroit--strictest gun control
in America. It is actually worse there than it is in Mexico. It is
actually worse there, 10 times the homicide rate.
Ladies and gentlemen, do not let the Federal Government take your
rights away. The Constitution says this right shall not be infringed
upon.
I come from Pennsylvania, and it says the right to defend yourself--
the right to defend yourself, the right to bear arms and defend
yourself shall not be questioned. We are not going to allow it to be
questioned here.
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the great State
of Pennsylvania for reminding us of how tremendously important the
Second Amendment is.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good), my
good friend and colleague who represents Virginia's Fifth District.
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the right to keep and bear arms
for self-defense and to ensure we remain a free people is a God-given
right, not a government-bestowed privilege.
We are, however, privileged to live in a country whose Founders
correctly and appropriately recognized this God-given right and
codified it in the highest law of the land, the Constitution.
The wording of the Second Amendment is assumptive in nature. The
right to keep and bear arms is assumed to already exist, and our
Founders merely provided legal clarity and protection that it not be
infringed.
Government officials who do right and follow the Constitution have
nothing to fear from an armed citizenry. However, government officials
who oppress their people and violate their Constitutional oath and the
rights guaranteed by that Constitution for
[[Page H3231]]
the people should rightly fear those people.
As has been said: ``When people fear the government, there is
tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.''
But this administration believes that the greatest threat to our
country is its own people, its own citizens. This is what oppressive
regimes say.
This administration never misses an opportunity to attack the Second
Amendment by seeking to tax and regulate away our constitutional
rights.
They have blamed law-abiding citizens and licensed firearms dealers
for the recent surge in violent crime in Democrat-run cities.
They have nominated a gun-grabbing radical named David Chipman to
lead the ATF.
President Biden has himself repeatedly belittled gun owners and their
belief that the right to bear arms is essential to freedom. But
President Biden's opinion does not change the Constitution or the
Second Amendment.
In fact, with Biden's crime surge, Biden's border surge, and Democrat
efforts to weaken and undermine law enforcement, it is no wonder
someone recently said to me: ``I carry a gun because I can't carry a
cop.''
Thomas Jefferson once wrote: ``What country can preserve its
liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their
people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.''
The Second Amendment protects all other rights and freedoms.
As my friend Chip Roy from Texas said last week at an event we were
at together: ``We will live free.''
The Second Amendment is critical to ensuring that we live free.
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the good gentleman and my good
friend, Representative Good from Virginia, for his inspiring words.
As previously noted, Madam Speaker, the Biden administration has
issued a proposed rule that would misinterpret the law and criminalize
pistols with stabilizing braces. My friend from Virginia, Mr. Good, has
introduced legislation to right this wrong and provide clear and
accurate definitions for both rifles and pistols to avoid infringing on
individuals' Second Amendment rights, and that is H.R. 3823.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore), my
good friend from Alabama's Second District.
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I thank and appreciate
Representative Clyde for his leadership on this issue.
Madam Speaker, recent remarks by President Joe Biden about the Second
Amendment have troubled me and millions of Americans who own firearms.
I think they should trouble people on both sides of the aisle. I also
believe his remarks and attitude toward gun owners should trouble all
freedom-loving Americans, regardless of whether they own a gun.
You see, President Biden's comments about restricting the Second
Amendment show a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship
between this Nation's government and its people.
President Biden believes that the American people get their rights
from the government. Our Founders would strongly disagree.
In fact, they were so skeptical of a powerful central government that
they created an innovative and remarkable system of checks and balances
to protect its citizens from a tyrannical government.
As it was so eloquently phrased in our Declaration of Independence:
``to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . ''
What powers our Government possesses was given to it by the people,
not the other way around. And we gave these powers to the Government to
protect the rights we hold dear.
The Second Amendment does not apply to a particular firearm. It does
not specify an AR-15, nor does it list a musket or a bayonet. It didn't
have to, because the Second Amendment protects the right that you
already have, the right to bear arms. There is no need to continually
update the Second Amendment.
Madam Speaker, the Second Amendment is not a permission slip, but an
assurance that no law will be enacted to strip the American people of
their fundamental right.
The language of the Second Amendment is clear. And it says: ``The
right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''
This right was so important to the Founders that they would not enact
the Constitution without the Second Amendment's inclusion in the Bill
of Rights.
President Biden's remarks betray the flawed reasoning of so many in
the Democratic Party, who insist that the government is the grantor of
rights. It is not grantor but the guarantor, the protector. The
government simply cannot grant rights given to us by God. It protects
those God-given rights.
Americans should be skeptical of any philosophy asserting the
government can restrict the rights we have given it the power to
protect. If they take your guns, what is next? The right to trial by
jury? Maybe free speech? The right to worship who and how we choose?
Madam Speaker, for the American people to keep the liberty we hold
dear, our constitutional protections, all of them, must be maintained.
Thomas Jefferson said it this way: ``When the government fears
people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is
tyranny.''
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the good gentleman from Alabama for
those inspiring remarks.
I want to talk about privately-made firearms, which I briefly
referenced in my introductory remarks.
Undeniably, the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms,
has been fundamental to the freedom and security of our Nation since it
was first founded in 1776. It is the teeth behind so many of the other
rights and liberties we enjoy.
We know this to be true, because history has shown us that when the
right to keep and bear arms falls, then the right of free speech and of
the free press falls immediately after.
From our very beginning until today, for almost 250 years, people
have always been able to build their own firearms. But that right is at
risk, considering the White House's gun control agenda.
Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, commercial firearm manufacturers,
importers, firearm distributors, and retail firearm dealers had to get
Federal Government licenses in order to continue to operate their
businesses. Along with those licenses came record-keeping requirements
and compliance inspections to ensure they followed the new laws and
regulations. This effectively put almost all firearm manufacturers
and importers under the direct control of the Federal Government.
History also tells us, Madam Speaker, that after registration comes
confiscation. We saw it happen in Russia after the 1917 Communist
revolution; in Nazi Germany in 1938; in Australia in 1996; and most
recently, in New Zealand in 2019.
In those countries, national registration led to eventual
confiscation. Now the ATF wants even privately made firearms under
their total control. To make component parts like upper housing and
slides, those parts that can hold a firing pin or a bolt or a bolt
carrier, to make those simple parts into a serialized firearm will have
a chilling effect on privately made firearms.
In fact, it could completely eliminate privately made firearms,
finally placing all manufacture of firearms under complete government
control. Those fears are genuinely based, and we see that today with
ATF trying to legislate by redefining the meaning of words or creating
new ones that don't even exist in the written law.
As I noted earlier in the hour, Madam Speaker, I share the passion of
my Democrat colleagues in keeping firearms out of the hands of
criminals. But in achieving that shared goal, we cannot trample on the
Second Amendment rights of citizens.
If the ATF succeeds in pushing these new definitions across the
finish line, Madam Speaker, I fear that we will be opening the
floodgates to allowing the agency to regulate our God-given Second
Amendment rights right out of existence.
I don't plan to allow that to happen. Not on my watch, Madam Speaker.
I don't think my colleagues who filled these seats earlier plan to
allow that to happen either.
[[Page H3232]]
Together, with the support of the American people, we will never give
one inch in the defense of the Second Amendment.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann), my
good friend who represents Kansas' First District and introduced H.R.
1758, the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2021.
Mr. MANN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for holding this
important Special Order to highlight a basic right that we all share
and love and that makes us who we are as Americans.
Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss President Biden's misuse of
the executive order and its harmful impact on law-abiding citizens.
In 1789, George Washington penned the first executive order,
directing the heads of his departments to submit reports on their
operations.
In 1957, my fellow Kansan, Dwight D. Eisenhower used the executive
order to send Federal troops to integrate public schools in Little
Rock, Arkansas.
{time} 2045
Nearly every United States President has issued executive orders like
these to instruct the government how to work within the parameters set
by the Congress and the Constitution. Until now.
In his first 10 days as President, Joe Biden issued 25 executive
orders, more than the last seven Presidents combined in their first 10
days. And the list continues to grow. Today, we are up to nearly 60
executive orders and more executive actions and memoranda than I care
to count.
The power to issue executive orders is derived from Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution, which states that the President ``shall
take care that the laws be faithfully executed.''
When orders are based in facts and stakeholder engagement, like those
we saw with Washington and Eisenhower, they work well to steward the
execution of said laws. When the power to issue an executive order is
abused, though, used to strong-hand the minority or circumvent
Congress, the orders become a dangerous tool to undermine the American
people and our democracy. This is what is happening right now.
President Biden recently penned six anti-Second Amendment executive
actions in one day, banning handmade guns altogether; defining a pistol
as a short-barreled rifle, allowing for more intense regulation; and
mandating a report on gun gifting and trading.
In a recent interview on gun control, a spokesperson for President
Biden stated: ``The President will not wait for Congress to act before
the administration takes our own steps, fully within the
administration's authority and the Second Amendment.''
We can no longer sit idle and watch dozens of executive orders from a
single administration attempt to dictate the direction of our country
with no input from this Congress. Congress was created to legislate.
Governing by executive order is not legislating. That is why I
introduced H.R. 716, the More Accountability is Necessary Now Act,
requiring the executive branch to notify the American public and this
Congress with its intent to issue any new executive order or revoking
any executive order that pertains to our Second Amendment rights.
I also introduced H.R. 1758, the Home Defense and Competitive
Shooting Act, pushing back on President Biden's intent to redefine
pistols as short-barreled rifles and eliminating the prohibition on
transporting short-barreled rifles in interstate commerce.
I invite my colleagues to cosponsor both of these pieces of
legislation as we stand up against any efforts, including shameful
executive overreach, to diminish or weaken the rights of law-abiding
Americans to own, carry, and use firearms.
The Second Amendment is a load-bearing wall in our Constitution. If
you weaken a load-bearing wall, it is bad for the entire structure.
We must and we will push back against the relentless attacks on our
Second Amendment rights.
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, while any infringement of our Second
Amendment rights is unconstitutional, policymakers have imposed even
stricter regulations on some types of firearms, particularly short-
barreled rifles. I truly appreciate my friend from Kansas' First
District correcting this by introducing the Home Defense and
Competitive Shooting Act of 2021, which will accurately classify short-
barreled rifles as semiautomatic rifles, as they should be. They should
be semiautomatic rifles and only semiautomatic rifles and regulated as
such.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for affording my colleagues and me the
opportunity to stand before you today in defense of the Second
Amendment and to highlight commonsense, conservative-led proposals to
protect and preserve our rights.
Madam Speaker, I thank each of my colleagues for their participation
this evening. Their respective constituents should be proud to have
such staunch defenders of the Second Amendment representing them in the
people's House.
Though several of my colleagues who have introduced proposals could
not join us tonight, the American people should know that the solutions
highlighted in the last hour are not exhaustive of our efforts to
restore, protect, and preserve our God-given right to keep and bear
arms. Rather, the solutions presented tonight are just the tip of the
iceberg.
Madam Speaker, I again reiterate to you my sincere hope that the
American people will take the opportunity to share their thoughts with
the ATF on the two proposed regulations that I mentioned, as you can
see on this board right here, as they have the potential to upend not
only the firearms manufacturing industry but also the legality of guns
in homes across the country as we know it.
My constituents sent me to Congress to do everything in my power to
protect and uphold the Constitution, and I plan to do just that so long
as they entrust me with their voting card.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
____________________