[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.

                          ____________________