[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 99 (Thursday, June 9, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H5415-H5430]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
FEDERAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT OF 2021
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1153, I call
up the bill (H.R. 2377) to authorize the issuance of extreme risk
protection orders, and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1153, in lieu
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
117-46, modified by the amendment printed in House Report 117-356, is
adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 2377
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Extreme Risk
Protection Order Act of 2022''.
SEC. 2. FEDERAL EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 932. Extreme risk protection orders
``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `court' means a district court of the United
States;
``(2) the term `designated law enforcement officer' means a
law enforcement officer, designated by a United States
marshal, who agrees to receive firearms, ammunition, and
permits, as applicable, surrendered under subsection (f);
``(3) the term `Director' means the Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts;
``(4) the term `ex parte Federal extreme risk protection
order' or `ex parte Federal order' means a Federal extreme
risk protection order issued under subsection (c);
``(5) the term `Federal extreme risk protection order'
means an order issued by a Federal court that enjoins an
individual from purchasing, possessing, or receiving, in or
affecting interstate and foreign commerce, a firearm or
ammunition;
``(6) the term `family or household member', with respect
to a Federal order respondent, means any--
``(A) parent, spouse, sibling, or child related by blood,
marriage, or adoption to the respondent;
``(B) dating partner of the respondent;
``(C) individual who has a child in common with the
respondent, regardless of whether the individual has--
``(i) been married to the respondent; or
``(ii) lived together with the respondent at any time;
``(D) individual who resides or has resided with the
respondent during the past year;
``(E) domestic partner of the respondent;
``(F) individual who has a legal parent-child relationship
with the respondent, including a stepparent-stepchild and
grandparent-grandchild relationship; and
``(G) individual who is acting or has acted as the legal
guardian of the respondent;
``(7) the term `Federal order petitioner' means an
individual authorized to petition for an ex parte or long-
term Federal extreme risk protection order under subsection
(b)(1);
``(8) the term `Federal order respondent' means an
individual named in the petition for an ex parte or long-term
Federal extreme risk protection order or subject to an ex
parte or long-term Federal extreme risk protection order;
``(9) the term `long-term Federal extreme risk protection
order' or `long-term Federal order' means a Federal extreme
risk protection order issued under subsection (d);
``(10) the term `mental health agency' means an agency of a
State, Tribal, or local government or its contracted agency
that is responsible for mental health services or co-
occurring mental health and substance abuse services; and
``(11) the term `national instant criminal background check
system' means the national instant criminal background check
system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901).
``(b) Petition.--
``(1) In general.--A family or household member of the
applicable individual, or a law enforcement officer, may
submit to an appropriate district court of the United States
a petition requesting that the court issue an ex parte
Federal extreme risk protection order or long-term Federal
extreme risk protection order with respect to an individual.
``(2) No fees.--A court or law enforcement agency may not
charge a petitioner or respondent any fee for--
``(A) filing, issuing, serving, or reporting an extreme
risk protection order;
``(B) a petition for an extreme risk protection order or
any pleading, subpoena, warrant, or motion in connection with
an extreme risk protection order; or
``(C) any order or order to show cause necessary to obtain
or give effect to this section.
``(3) Confidentiality.--A Federal order petitioner who is a
law enforcement officer may provide the identity of the
petitioner's sources, and any identifying information, to the
court under seal.
``(c) Ex Parte Orders.--
``(1) Timing.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
a court that receives a petition for an ex parte Federal
order under subsection (b) shall grant or deny the petition
on the date on which the petition is submitted.
``(B) Late petitions.--If a court receives a petition for
an ex parte Federal order submitted under subsection (b) too
late in the day to permit effective review, the court shall
grant or deny the petition on the next day of judicial
business at a time early enough to permit the court to file
an order with the clerk of the court during that day.
``(2) Evidence required.--Before issuing an ex parte
Federal order, a court shall require that the petitioner for
such order submit a signed affidavit, sworn to before the
court, that--
``(A) explains why such petitioner believes that the
Federal order respondent poses a risk of imminent personal
injury to self or another individual, by purchasing,
possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition; and
``(B) describes the interactions and conversations of the
petitioner with--
``(i) the respondent; or
``(ii) another individual, if such petitioner believes that
information obtained from that individual is credible and
reliable.
``(3) Standard for issuance of order.--A court may issue an
ex parte Federal order only upon a finding of probable cause
to believe that--
``(A) the Federal order respondent poses a risk of imminent
personal injury to self or another individual, by purchasing,
possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition; and
``(B) the order is necessary to prevent the injury
described in subparagraph (A).
``(4) Duration.--An ex parte Federal order shall expire on
the earlier of--
``(A) the date that is 14 days after the date of issuance;
or
``(B) the date on which the court determines whether to
issue a long-term Federal order with respect to the
respondent.
``(d) Long-term Federal Orders.--
``(1) Hearing required.--If a court receives a petition for
a long-term Federal extreme risk protection order for a
respondent under subsection (b), the court shall hold a
hearing to determine whether to issue a long-term Federal
order with respect to the respondent either--
``(A)(i) if the court issues an ex parte order with respect
to the respondent, not later than 72 hours after the ex parte
order is served on the respondent; or
``(ii) if the respondent waives the right to a hearing
within the 72-hour period under clause (i), or the court does
not issue an ex parte order, within 14 days after the date on
which the court receives the petition; or
``(B) in no event later than 14 days after the date on
which the court receives the petition.
``(2) Notice and opportunity to be heard.--
``(A) In general.--The court shall provide the Federal
order respondent with notice and the opportunity to be heard
at a hearing under this subsection, sufficient to protect the
due process rights of the respondent.
``(B) Right to counsel.--
``(i) In general.--At a hearing under this subsection, the
Federal order respondent may be represented by counsel who
is--
``(I) chosen by the respondent; and
``(II) authorized to practice at such a hearing.
``(ii) Court-provided counsel.--If the Federal order
respondent is financially unable to obtain representation by
counsel, the court, at the request of the respondent, shall
ensure, to the extent practicable, that the respondent is
represented by an attorney with respect to the petition.
``(3) Burden of proof; standard.--At a hearing under this
subsection, the Federal order petitioner--
``(A) shall have the burden of proving all material facts;
and
``(B) shall be required to demonstrate, by clear and
convincing evidence, that--
``(i) the respondent to such order poses a risk of personal
injury to self or another individual, during the period to be
covered by the proposed Federal extreme risk protection
order, by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or
ammunition; and
``(ii) the order is necessary to prevent the injury
described in clause (i).
``(4) Issuance.--Upon a showing of clear and convincing
evidence under paragraph (3), the court shall issue a long-
term Federal order with
[[Page H5416]]
respect to the respondent that shall be in effect for a
period of not more than 180 days.
``(5) Denial.--If the court finds that there is not clear
and convincing evidence to support the issuance of a long-
term Federal order, the court shall dissolve any ex parte
Federal order then in effect with respect to the respondent.
``(6) Renewal.--
``(A) Notice of scheduled expiration.--Thirty days before
the date on which a long-term Federal order is scheduled to
expire, the court that issued the order shall--
``(i) notify the petitioner and the respondent to such
order that the order is scheduled to expire; and
``(ii) advise the petitioner and the respondent of the
procedures for seeking a renewal of the order under this
paragraph.
``(B) Petition.--If a family or household member of the
Federal order respondent, or a law enforcement officer,
believes that the conditions under paragraph (3)(B) continue
to apply with respect to a respondent who is subject to a
long-term Federal order, the family or household member or
law enforcement officer may submit to the court that issued
the order a petition for a renewal of the order.
``(C) Hearing.--A court that receives a petition submitted
under subparagraph (B) shall hold a hearing to determine
whether to issue a renewed long-term Federal order with
respect to the respondent.
``(D) Applicable procedures.--The requirements under
paragraphs (2) through (5) shall apply to the consideration
of a petition for a renewed long-term Federal order submitted
under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
``(E) Issuance.--Upon a showing by clear and convincing
evidence that the conditions under paragraph (3)(B) continue
to apply with respect to the respondent, the court shall
issue a renewed long-term Federal order with respect to the
respondent.
``(e) Factors to Consider.--In determining whether to issue
a Federal extreme risk protection order, a court--
``(1) shall consider factors including--
``(A) a recent threat or act of violence by the respondent
directed toward another individual;
``(B) a recent threat or act of violence by the respondent
directed toward self;
``(C) a recent act of cruelty to an animal by the
respondent; and
``(D) evidence of ongoing abuse of a controlled substance
or alcohol by the respondent that has led to a threat or act
of violence directed to self or another individual; and
``(2) may consider other factors, including--
``(A) the reckless use, display, or brandishing of a
firearm by the respondent;
``(B) a history of violence or attempted violence by the
respondent against another individual; and
``(C) evidence of an explicit or implicit threat made by
the person through any medium that demonstrate that the
person poses a risk of personal injury to self or another
individual.
``(f) Relinquishment of Firearms and Ammunition.--
``(1) Order of surrender.--Upon issuance of an ex parte
Federal order or long-term Federal order, the court shall
order the respondent to such order to surrender all firearms
and ammunition that the respondent possesses or owns, in or
affecting interstate commerce, as well as any permit
authorizing the respondent to purchase or possess firearms
(including a concealed carry permit), to--
``(A) the United States Marshals Service; or
``(B) a designated law enforcement officer.
``(2) Surrender and removal.--
``(A) Manner of service.--
``(i) Personal service.--Except as provided in clause (ii),
a United States marshal or designated law enforcement officer
shall serve a Federal extreme risk protection order on a
respondent by handing the order to the respondent to such
order.
``(ii) Alternative service.--If the respondent cannot
reasonably be located for service as described in clause (i),
a Federal extreme risk protection order may be served on the
respondent in any manner authorized under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
``(B) Removal.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), a
United States marshal or designated law enforcement officer
serving a Federal extreme risk protection order personally on
the respondent shall--
``(i) request that all firearms and ammunition, in or
affecting interstate commerce, as well as any permit
authorizing the respondent to purchase or possess firearms
(including a concealed carry permit), that the respondent
possesses or owns--
``(I) be immediately surrendered to the United States
marshal or designated law enforcement officer; or
``(II) at the option of the respondent, be immediately
surrendered and sold to a federally licensed firearms dealer;
and
``(ii) take possession of all firearms and ammunition
described in clause (i) that are not sold under subclause
(II) of that clause, as well as any permit described in that
clause, that are--
``(I) surrendered;
``(II) in plain sight; or
``(III) discovered pursuant to a lawful search.
``(C) Alternative surrender.--If a United States marshal or
designated law enforcement officer is not able to personally
serve a Federal extreme risk protection order under
subparagraph (A)(i), or is not reasonably able to take
custody of the firearms, ammunition, and permits under
subparagraph (B), the respondent shall surrender the
firearms, ammunition, and permits in a safe manner to the
control of a United States marshal or designated law
enforcement officer not later than 48 hours after being
served with the order.
``(3) Receipt.--
``(A) Issuance.--At the time of surrender or removal under
paragraph (2), a United States marshal or designated law
enforcement officer taking possession of a firearm,
ammunition, or a permit pursuant to a Federal extreme risk
protection order shall--
``(i) issue a receipt identifying all firearms, ammunition,
and permits that have been surrendered or removed; and
``(ii) provide a copy of the receipt issued under clause
(i) to the respondent to such order.
``(B) Filing.--Not later than 72 hours after issuance of a
receipt under subparagraph (A), the United States marshal who
issued the receipt or designated another law enforcement
officer to do so shall--
``(i) file the original receipt issued under subparagraph
(A) of this paragraph with the court that issued the Federal
extreme risk protection order; and
``(ii) ensure that the United States Marshals Service
retains a copy of the receipt.
``(C) Designated law enforcement officer.--If a designated
law enforcement officer issues a receipt under subparagraph
(A), the officer shall submit the original receipt and a copy
of the receipt to the appropriate United States marshal to
enable the United States marshal to comply with subparagraph
(B).
``(4) Forfeiture.--If a respondent knowingly attempts, in
violation of a Federal extreme risk protection order, to
access a firearm, ammunition, or a permit that was
surrendered or removed under this subsection, the firearm,
ammunition, or permit shall be subject to seizure and
forfeiture under section 924(d).
``(g) Return of Firearms and Ammunition.--
``(1) Notice.--If a Federal extreme risk protection order
is dissolved, or expires and is not renewed, the court that
issued the order shall order the United States Marshals
Service to--
``(A) confirm, through the national instant criminal
background check system and any other relevant law
enforcement databases, that the respondent to such order may
lawfully own and possess firearms and ammunition; and
``(B)(i) if the respondent may lawfully own and possess
firearms and ammunition, notify the respondent that the
respondent may retrieve each firearm, ammunition, or permit
surrendered by or removed from the respondent under
subsection (f); or
``(ii) if the respondent may not lawfully own or possess
firearms and ammunition, notify the respondent that each
firearm, ammunition, or permit surrendered by or removed from
the respondent under subsection (f) will be returned only
when the respondent demonstrates to the United States
Marshals Service that the respondent may lawfully own and
possess firearms and ammunition.
``(2) Return.--If a Federal extreme risk protection order
is dissolved, or expires and is not renewed, and the United
States Marshals Service confirms under paragraph (1)(A) that
the respondent may lawfully own and possess firearms and
ammunition, the court that issued the order shall order the
entity that possesses each firearm, ammunition, or permit
surrendered by or removed from the respondent under
subsection (f) to return those items to the respondent.
``(h) Return of Firearms and Ammunition Improperly
Received.--If a court, in a hearing under subsection (d),
determines that a firearm or ammunition surrendered by or
removed from a respondent under subsection (f) is owned by an
individual other than the respondent, the court may order the
United States marshal or designated law enforcement officer
in possession of the firearm or ammunition to transfer the
firearm or ammunition to that individual if--
``(1) the individual may lawfully own and possess firearms
and ammunition; and
``(2) the individual will not provide the respondent with
access to the firearm or ammunition.
``(i) Penalty for False Reporting or Frivolous Petitions.--
An individual who knowingly submits materially false
information to the court in a petition for a Federal extreme
risk protection order under this section, or who knowingly
files such a petition that is frivolous, unreasonable, or
without foundation, shall be fined not more than $5,000, or
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, except to the
extent that a greater sentence is otherwise provided by any
other provision of law, as the court deems necessary to deter
such abuse of process.
``(j) Model Policy.--
``(1) In general.--The Director shall draft a model policy
to maximize the accessibility of Federal extreme risk
protection orders.
``(2) Contents.--In drafting the model policy under
paragraph (1), the Director shall--
``(A) ensure that State, Tribal, and local law enforcement
officers and members of the public without legal training are
able to easily file petitions for Federal extreme risk
protection orders;
``(B) prescribe outreach efforts by employees of the
district courts of the United States to familiarize relevant
law enforcement officers and the public with the procedures
for filing petitions, either--
``(i) through direct outreach; or
``(ii) in coordination with--
``(I) relevant officials in the executive or legislative
branch of the Federal Government; or
``(II) with relevant State, Tribal, and local officials;
``(C) prescribe policies for allowing the filing of
petitions and prompt adjudication of petitions on weekends
and outside of normal court hours;
``(D) prescribe policies for coordinating with law
enforcement agencies to ensure the safe, timely, and
effective service of Federal extreme risk protection orders
and relinquishment of firearms, ammunition, and permits, as
applicable; and
``(E) identify governmental and non-governmental resources
and partners to help officials
[[Page H5417]]
of the district courts of the United States coordinate with
civil society organizations to ensure the safe and effective
implementation of this section.
``(k) Reporting.--
``(1) Individual reports.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 2 court days after the
date on which a court issues or dissolves a Federal extreme
risk protection order under this section or a Federal extreme
risk protection order expires without being renewed, the
court shall notify--
``(i) the Attorney General;
``(ii) each relevant mental health agency in the State in
which the order is issued; and
``(iii) State and local law enforcement officials in the
jurisdiction in which the order is issued, including the
national instant criminal background check system single
point of contact for the State of residence of the
respondent, where applicable.
``(B) Format.--A court shall submit a notice under
subparagraph (A) in an electronic format, in a manner
prescribed by the Attorney General.
``(C) Update of databases.--As soon as practicable and not
later than 5 days after receiving a notice under subparagraph
(A), the Attorney General shall update the background check
databases of the Attorney General to reflect the prohibitions
articulated in the applicable Federal extreme risk protection
order.
``(2) Annual report.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act
of 2022, and annually thereafter, the Director shall submit
to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a
report that includes, with respect to the preceding year--
``(A) the number of petitions for ex parte Federal orders
filed, as well as the number of such orders issued and the
number denied, disaggregated by--
``(i) the jurisdiction;
``(ii) whether the individual authorized under subsection
(b) to petition for a Federal extreme risk protection order
is a law enforcement officer, or a family or household
member, and in the case of a family or household member,
which of subparagraphs (A) through (G) of subsection (a)(6)
describes the relationship; and
``(iii) the alleged danger posed by the Federal order
respondent, including whether the danger involved a risk of
suicide, unintentional injury, domestic violence, or other
interpersonal violence;
``(B) the number of petitions for long-term Federal orders
filed, as well as the number of such orders issued and the
number denied, disaggregated by--
``(i) the jurisdiction;
``(ii) whether the individual authorized under subsection
(b) to petition for a Federal extreme risk protection order
is a law enforcement officer, or a family or household
member, and in the case of a family or household member,
which of subparagraphs (A) through (G) of subsection (a)(6)
describes the relationship; and
``(iii) the alleged danger posed by the Federal order
respondent, including whether the danger involved a risk of
suicide, unintentional injury, domestic violence, or other
interpersonal violence;
``(C) the number of petitions for renewals of long-term
Federal orders filed, as well as the number of such orders
issued and the number denied;
``(D) the number of cases in which a court has issued a
penalty for false reporting or frivolous petitions;
``(E) demographic data of Federal order petitioners,
including race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age,
disability, average annual income, and English language
proficiency, if available;
``(F) demographic data of Federal order respondents,
including race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age,
disability, average annual income, and English language
proficiency, if available; and
``(G) the total number of firearms removed pursuant to
Federal extreme risk protection orders, and, if available,
the number of firearms removed pursuant to each such order.
``(l) Training for Federal Law Enforcement Officers.--
``(1) Training requirements.--The head of each Federal law
enforcement agency shall require each Federal law enforcement
officer employed by the agency to complete training in the
safe, impartial, effective, and equitable use and
administration of Federal extreme risk protection orders,
including training to address--
``(A) bias based on race and racism, ethnicity, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, language
proficiency, mental health condition, disability, and
classism in the use and administration of Federal extreme
risk protection orders;
``(B) the appropriate use of Federal extreme risk
protection orders in cases of domestic violence, including
the applicability of other policies and protocols to address
domestic violence in situations that may also involve Federal
extreme risk protection orders and the necessity of safety
planning with the victim before law enforcement petitions for
and executes a Federal extreme risk protection order, if
applicable;
``(C) interacting with persons with mental, behavioral, or
physical disabilities, or emotional distress, including de-
escalation techniques and crisis intervention;
``(D) techniques for outreach to historically marginalized
cultural communities and the development of linguistic
proficiencies for law enforcement;
``(E) community relations; and
``(F) best practices for referring persons subject to
Federal extreme risk protection orders and associated victims
of violence to social service providers that may be available
in the jurisdiction and appropriate for those individuals,
including health care, mental health, substance abuse, and
legal services, employment and vocational services, housing
assistance, case management, and veterans and disability
benefits.
``(2) Training development.--Federal law enforcement
agencies developing law enforcement training required under
this section shall seek advice from domestic violence service
providers (including culturally specific (as defined in
section 40002 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34
U.S.C. 12291)) providers), social service providers, suicide
prevention advocates, violence intervention specialists, law
enforcement agencies, mental health disability experts, and
other community groups working to reduce suicides and
violence, including domestic violence, within the State.
``(m) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section or
shall be construed to alter the requirements of subsections
(d)(8) or (g)(8) of section 922, related to domestic violence
protective orders.
``(n) Preemption.--Nothing in this section may be construed
to preempt any State law or policy.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter
44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``932. Extreme risk protection orders.''.
(2) Forfeiture.--Section 924(d)(3) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) any attempt to violate a Federal extreme risk
protection order issued under section 932.''.
SEC. 3. FEDERAL FIREARMS PROHIBITION.
Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (8)(B)(ii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
``(10) is subject to a court order--
``(A) issued under section 932; or
``(B) that is an extreme risk protection order (as defined
in section 4(a) of the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order
Act of 2022).''; and
(2) in subsection (g)--
(A) in paragraph (8)(C)(ii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (9), by striking the comma at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
``(10) is subject to a court order--
``(A) issued under section 932; or
``(B) that is an extreme risk protection order (as defined
in section 4(a) of the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order
Act of 2022),''.
SEC. 4. EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means--
(A) a State or Indian Tribe--
(i) that enacts legislation described in subsection (c);
(ii) with respect to which the Attorney General determines
that the legislation described in clause (i) complies with
the requirements under subsection (c)(1); and
(iii) that certifies to the Attorney General that the State
or Indian Tribe shall--
(I) use the grant for the purposes described in subsection
(b)(2); and
(II) allocate not less than 25 percent and not more than 70
percent of the amount received under a grant under subsection
(b) for the development and dissemination of training for law
enforcement officers in accordance with subsection (b)(4); or
(B) a unit of local government or other public or private
entity that--
(i) is located in a State or in the territory under the
jurisdiction of an Indian Tribe that meets the requirements
described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A); and
(ii) certifies to the Attorney General that the unit of
local government or entity shall--
(I) use the grant for the purposes described in subsection
(b)(2); and
(II) allocate not less than 25 percent and not more than 70
percent of the amount received under a grant under this
section for the development and dissemination of training for
law enforcement officers in accordance with subsection
(b)(4).
(2) Extreme risk protection order.--The term ``extreme risk
protection order'' means a written order or warrant, issued
by a State or Tribal court or signed by a magistrate (or
other comparable judicial officer), the primary purpose of
which is to reduce the risk of firearm-related death or
injury by doing 1 or more of the following:
(A) Prohibiting a named individual from having under the
custody or control of the individual, owning, purchasing,
possessing, or receiving a firearm.
(B) Having a firearm removed or requiring the surrender of
firearms from a named individual.
(3) Firearm.--The term ``firearm'' has the meaning given
the term in section 921 of title 18, United States Code.
(4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian Tribe'' has the
meaning given the term ``Indian tribe'' in section 1709 of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (34 U.S.C. 10389).
[[Page H5418]]
(5) Law enforcement officer.--The term ``law enforcement
officer'' means a public servant authorized by Federal,
State, local, or Tribal law or by a Federal, State, local, or
Tribal government agency to--
(A) engage in or supervise the prevention, detection,
investigation, or prosecution of an offense; or
(B) supervise sentenced criminal offenders.
(6) Petitioner.--The term ``petitioner'' means an
individual authorized under State or Tribal law to petition
for an extreme risk protection order.
(7) Respondent.--The term ``respondent'' means an
individual named in the petition for an extreme risk
protection order or subject to an extreme risk protection
order.
(8) State.--The term ``State'' means--
(A) a State;
(B) the District of Columbia;
(C) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
(D) any other territory or possession of the United States.
(9) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local
government'' has the meaning given the term in section 901 of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).
(b) Grant Program Established.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services of the Department of Justice shall
establish a program under which, from amounts made available
to carry out this section, the Director may make grants to
eligible entities to assist in carrying out the provisions of
the legislation described in subsection (c).
(2) Use of funds.--Funds awarded under this subsection may
be used by an applicant to--
(A) enhance the capacity of law enforcement agencies and
the courts of a State, unit of local government, or Indian
Tribe by providing personnel, training, technical assistance,
data collection, and other resources to carry out enacted
legislation described in subsection (c);
(B) train judges, court personnel, health care and legal
professionals, and law enforcement officers to more
accurately identify individuals whose access to firearms
poses a danger of causing harm to themselves or others by
increasing the risk of firearms suicide or interpersonal
violence;
(C) develop and implement law enforcement and court
protocols, forms, and orders so that law enforcement agencies
and the courts may carry out the provisions of the enacted
legislation described in subsection (c) in a safe, equitable,
and effective manner, including through the removal and
storage of firearms pursuant to extreme risk protection
orders under the enacted legislation; and
(D) raise public awareness and understanding of the enacted
legislation described in subsection (c), including through
subgrants to community-based organizations for the training
of community members, so that extreme risk protection orders
may be issued in appropriate situations to reduce the risk of
firearms-related death and injury.
(3) Application.--An eligible entity desiring a grant under
this subsection shall submit to the Attorney General an
application at such time, in such manner, and containing or
accompanied by such information as the Attorney General may
reasonably require.
(4) Training.--
(A) In general.--A recipient of a grant under this
subsection shall provide training to law enforcement
officers, including officers of relevant Federal, State,
local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies, in the safe,
impartial, effective, and equitable use and administration of
extreme risk protection orders, including training to
address--
(i) bias based on race and racism, ethnicity, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, language
proficiency, mental health condition, disability, and
classism in the use and administration of extreme risk
protection orders;
(ii) the appropriate use of extreme risk protection orders
in cases of domestic violence, including the applicability of
other policies and protocols to address domestic violence in
situations that may also involve extreme risk protection
orders and the necessity of safety planning with the victim
before a law enforcement officer petitions for and executes
an extreme risk protection order, if applicable;
(iii) interacting with persons with mental, behavioral, or
physical disabilities, or emotional distress, including de-
escalation techniques and crisis intervention;
(iv) techniques for outreach to historically marginalized
cultural communities and the development of linguistic
proficiencies for law enforcement;
(v) community relations; and
(vi) best practices for referring persons subject to
extreme risk protection orders and associated victims of
violence to social service providers that may be available in
the jurisdiction and appropriate for those individuals,
including health care, mental health, substance abuse, and
legal services, employment and vocational services, housing
assistance, case management, and veterans and disability
benefits.
(B) Consultation with experts.--A recipient of a grant
under this subsection, in developing law enforcement training
required under subparagraph (A), shall seek advice from
domestic violence service providers (including culturally
specific (as defined in section 40002 of the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291)) providers), social
service providers, suicide prevention advocates, violence
intervention specialists, law enforcement agencies, mental
health disability experts, and other community groups working
to reduce suicides and violence, including domestic violence,
within the State or the territory under the jurisdiction of
the Indian Tribe, as applicable, that enacted the legislation
described in subsection (c) that enabled the grant recipient
to be an eligible entity.
(5) Incentives.--For each of fiscal years 2023 through
2027, the Attorney General shall give affirmative preference
in awarding any discretionary grant awarded by the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services to a State or Indian
Tribe that has enacted legislation described in subsection
(c) or to a unit of local government or other public or
private entity located in such a State or in the territory
under the jurisdiction of such an Indian Tribe.
(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section.
(c) Eligibility for Extreme Risk Protection Order Grant
Program.--
(1) Requirements.--Legislation described in this subsection
is legislation that establishes requirements that are
substantially similar to the following:
(A) Application for extreme risk protection order.--A
petitioner, including a law enforcement officer, may submit
an application to a State or Tribal court, on a form designed
by the court or a State or Tribal agency, that--
(i) describes the facts and circumstances justifying that
an extreme risk protection order be issued against the named
individual; and
(ii) is signed by the applicant, under oath.
(B) Notice and due process.--The individual named in an
application for an extreme risk protection order as described
in subparagraph (A) shall be given written notice of the
application and an opportunity to be heard on the matter in
accordance with this paragraph.
(C) Issuance of extreme risk protection orders.--
(i) Hearing.--
(I) In general.--Upon receipt of an application described
in subparagraph (A) or request of an individual named in such
an application, the court shall order a hearing to be held
within a reasonable time, and not later than 30 days after
the date of the application or request.
(II) Determination.--If the court finds at the hearing
ordered under subclause (I), by a preponderance of the
evidence or according to a higher evidentiary standard
established by the State or Indian Tribe, that the respondent
poses a danger of causing harm to self or others by having
access to a firearm, the court may issue an extreme risk
protection order.
(ii) Duration of extreme risk protection order.--An extreme
risk protection order shall be in effect--
(I) until an order terminating or superseding the extreme
risk protection order is issued; or
(II) for a set period of time.
(D) Ex parte extreme risk protection orders.--
(i) In general.--Upon receipt of an application described
in subparagraph (A), the court may issue an ex parte extreme
risk protection order, if--
(I) the application for an extreme risk protection order
alleges that the respondent poses a danger of causing harm to
self or others by having access to a firearm; and
(II) the court finds there is reasonable cause to believe,
or makes a finding according to a higher evidentiary standard
established by the State or Indian Tribe, that the respondent
poses a danger of causing harm to self or others by having
access to a firearm.
(ii) Duration of ex parte extreme risk protection order.--
An ex parte extreme risk protection order shall remain in
effect only until the hearing required under subparagraph
(C)(i).
(E) Storage of removed firearms.--
(i) Availability for return.--All firearms removed or
surrendered pursuant to an extreme risk protection order
shall only be available for return to the named individual
when the individual has regained eligibility under Federal
and State law, and, where applicable, Tribal law to possess
firearms.
(ii) Consent required for disposal or destruction.--
Firearms owned by a named individual may not be disposed of
or destroyed during the period of the extreme risk protection
order without the consent of the named individual.
(F) Notification.--
(i) In general.--
(I) Requirement.--A State or Tribal court that issues an
extreme risk protection order shall notify the Attorney
General or the comparable State or Tribal agency, as
applicable, of the order as soon as practicable or within a
designated period of time.
(II) Form and manner.--A State or Tribal court shall submit
a notification under subclause (I) in an electronic format,
in a manner prescribed by the Attorney General or the
comparable State or Tribal agency.
(ii) Update of databases.--As soon as practicable or within
the time period designated by State or Tribal law after
receiving a notification under clause (i), the Attorney
General or the comparable State or Tribal agency shall ensure
that the extreme risk protection order is reflected in the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
[[Page H5419]]
(2) Additional provisions.--Legislation described in this
subsection may--
(A) provide procedures for the termination of an extreme
risk protection order;
(B) provide procedures for the renewal of an extreme risk
protection order;
(C) establish burdens and standards of proof for issuance
of orders described in paragraph (1) that are substantially
similar to or higher than the burdens and standards of proof
set forth in that paragraph;
(D) limit the individuals who may submit an application
described in paragraph (1), provided that, at a minimum, law
enforcement officers are authorized to do so; and
(E) include any other authorizations or requirements that
the State or Tribal authorities determine appropriate.
(3) Annual report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which an eligible entity receives a grant under subsection
(b), and annually thereafter for the duration of the grant
period, the entity shall submit to the Attorney General a
report that includes, with respect to the preceding year--
(A) the number of petitions for ex parte extreme risk
protection orders filed, as well as the number of such orders
issued and the number denied, disaggregated by--
(i) the jurisdiction;
(ii) the individual authorized under State or Tribal law to
petition for an extreme risk protection order, including the
relationship of the individual to the respondent; and
(iii) the alleged danger posed by the respondent, including
whether the danger involved a risk of suicide, unintentional
injury, domestic violence, or other interpersonal violence;
(B) the number of petitions for extreme risk protection
orders filed, as well as the number of such orders issued and
the number denied, disaggregated by--
(i) the jurisdiction;
(ii) the individual authorized under State or Tribal law to
petition for an extreme risk protection order, including the
relationship of the individual to the respondent; and
(iii) the alleged danger posed by the respondent, including
whether the danger involved a risk of suicide, unintentional
injury, domestic violence, or other interpersonal violence;
(C) the number of petitions for renewals of extreme risk
protection orders filed, as well as the number of such orders
issued and the number denied;
(D) the number of cases in which a court imposed a penalty
for false reporting or frivolous petitions;
(E) demographic data of petitioners, including race,
ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age, disability,
average annual income, and English language proficiency, if
available;
(F) demographic data of respondents, including race,
ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age, disability,
average annual income, and English language proficiency, if
available; and
(G) the total number of firearms removed pursuant to
extreme risk protection orders, and, if available, the number
of firearms removed pursuant to each such order.
SEC. 5. IDENTIFICATION RECORDS.
Section 534 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4)(A) subject to subparagraph (B), acquire, collect,
classify, and preserve records from Federal, Tribal, and
State courts and other agencies identifying individuals
subject to extreme risk protection orders, as defined in
section 4(a) of the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act
of 2022; and
``(B) destroy each record acquired or collected under
subparagraph (A) when the applicable extreme risk protection
order expires or is terminated or dissolved; and'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``(a)(4)'' and inserting
``(a)(5)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Extreme Risk Protection Orders in National Crime
Information Databases.--A Federal, Tribal, or State criminal
justice agency or criminal or civil court may--
``(1) include extreme risk protection orders, as defined in
section 4 of the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of
2022, and Federal extreme risk protection orders, as defined
in section 932 of title 18, in national crime information
databases, as that term is defined in subsection (f)(3) of
this section; and
``(2) have access to information regarding extreme risk
protection orders and Federal extreme risk protection orders
through the national crime information databases.''.
SEC. 6. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT.
(a) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``extreme risk
protection order'', ``Indian Tribe'', and ``State'' have the
meanings given those terms in section 4(a).
(b) Full Faith and Credit Required.--Any extreme risk
protection order issued under a State or Tribal law enacted
in accordance with this Act shall be accorded the same full
faith and credit by the court of another State or Indian
Tribe (referred to in this subsection as the ``enforcing
State or Indian Tribe'') and enforced by the court and law
enforcement personnel of the other State or Tribal government
as if it were the order of the enforcing State or Indian
Tribe.
(c) Applicability to Protection Orders.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) shall apply to a protection
order issued by a State or Tribal court if--
(A) the court has jurisdiction over the parties and matter
under the law of the State or Indian Tribe; and
(B) reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard is given
to the person against whom the order is sought sufficient to
protect that person's right to due process.
(2) Ex parte protection orders.--For purposes of paragraph
(1)(B), in the case of an ex parte protection order, notice
and opportunity to be heard shall be provided within the time
required by State or Tribal law, and in any event within a
reasonable time after the order is issued, sufficient to
protect the due process rights of the respondent.
(d) Tribal Court Jurisdiction.--For purposes of this
section, a court of an Indian Tribe shall have full civil
jurisdiction to issue and enforce a protection order
involving any person, including the authority to enforce any
order through civil contempt proceedings, to exclude
violators from Indian land, and to use other appropriate
mechanisms, in matters arising anywhere in the Indian country
(as defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code)
of the Indian Tribe or otherwise within the authority of the
Indian Tribe.
SEC. 7. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
Section 3(1) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
(34 U.S.C. 40903(1)) is amended by striking ``section
922(g)(8)'' and inserting ``paragraph (8) or (10) of section
922(g)''.
SEC. 8. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or an amendment made by this
Act, or the application of such provision to any person or
circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this
Act, or an amendment made by this Act, or the application of
such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not
be affected.
SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect on the date that is 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Hayes). The bill, as amended, shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the Chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Jordan) will each control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2377.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, over the past several weeks, we have watched in horror
as gun violence has touched communities across the country and dozens
of people, young and old, have lost their lives. The details of each
case may differ, each tragic in its own way, but there is one theme
that comes up most often; someone deeply troubled, experiencing some
sort of crisis, had easy access to firearms. And all too often, the
warning signs were clear, but nothing was done to keep guns out of
their hands before it was too late.
H.R. 2377, the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, provides a
sensible means by which someone who is exhibiting dangerous behavior
can be prevented from possessing or purchasing firearms before tragedy
strikes.
This legislation, introduced by Representative Lucy McBath,
authorizes Federal courts to issue an extreme risk protection order, or
ERPO, temporarily removing firearms from a person in crisis and
preventing them from purchasing firearms. This only occurs after the
court determines that there is evidence demonstrating that the person
poses an imminent danger of injuring himself, herself, or others.
The bill also includes legislation by Representative Salud Carbajal,
which provides funding to States to enact ERPO statutes of their own.
We know that extreme risk laws save lives. We have witnessed their
effectiveness in State after State, beginning in 2016, when California
passed the first such law. Since then, 18 other States and the District
of Columbia have enacted similar laws.
An analysis of the first 3 years of California's extreme risk law
found
[[Page H5420]]
that these orders were used for 58 mass shooting threats, including six
in which a minor threatened to target a school.
These orders were also used in response to 82 threats of suicide, and
they worked. No suicides occurred among individuals who were subject to
the orders.
Federal courts have long been bastions of due process and,
accordingly, this legislation includes strong due process provisions
that strike the appropriate balance between protecting the rights of
the gun owner and ensuring community safety. Every court that has
reviewed laws similar to this bill has found that the procedural
safeguards are sufficient.
And as then-Seventh Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote, ``History
is consistent with common sense: It demonstrates that legislatures have
the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns.''
Madam Speaker, the Constitution does not require us to wait until
lives are lost.
As we address the scourge of gun violence, a blight that killed
45,000 Americans in 2020 alone, let us remember that there are no
perfect solutions. We are painfully aware that we cannot do enough to
save every life, and there is no one answer that will solve this
problem.
But we do know that taking guns out of the hands of people who pose a
danger to themselves or others would save countless lives. This
legislation would take meaningful steps to prevent gun violence
tragedies in our communities while, at the same time, protecting the
due process of rights of those individuals in crisis.
I thank Representatives McBath and Carbajal for their leadership on
this issue. I urge all Members to support the bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Jordan for
yielding.
You know, we have heard some revealing things this week. It was just
a few moments ago our colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, lectured us
that the Old Testament doesn't mention the word ``guns'' and so we
shouldn't claim that this is a fundamental freedom. You know, as usual,
he misunderstands the point of Scripture and the Constitution.
Here is the thing: As Americans, we respect and we protect the
unalienable, God-given right to self-protection and to the protection
of innocent lives around us.
President Biden said--among other outrageous things this week we have
heard, President Biden said that he wanted to ban 9-millimeter
handguns. That is one of the most widely owned handguns by law-abiding
citizens in this country.
Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island, now infamously in our committee
hearing, exclaimed, ``Spare me the'' B.S.--that is not what he said--
``Spare me the'' B.S. ``about constitutional rights.'' That is pretty
revealing.
Mr. Jones, in the same hearing, just a few moments later, he said
that if Democrats don't get their way on their gun control wish list,
that they will abolish the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court. They
are saying the quiet parts out loud.
See, that wish list that they have includes taking away guns from
Americans without the constitutionally required due process of law,
which is exactly what this bill would do. It would allow the courts to
take guns away from people without notice and without even the right to
appear in the hearing to defend themselves in court.
Now, the other side is going to tell you, and you will hear in the
argument here, hey, there is due process. Don't worry about it, they
will say, because people subjected to this process, they can just go to
court and they can petition to get their firearms back.
But I will let my colleagues in on something that every first-year
law student learns: Due process after the fact is no due process at
all.
Now, the other side is also going to argue here--get ready for it--
they are going to claim that they have come up with a reasonable
compromise by just making these gun confiscation orders temporary. They
will say it is only going to last 14 days. They won't tell you that
these orders can be renewed indefinitely.
My Democrat colleagues are going to tell you that this bill will save
lives. But if you look at the objective studies, the comprehensive
studies on this, you will find that the red flag laws in all these
States have had no significant effect on the rates of murder, suicide,
or the number of people killed in mass public shootings.
If this bill passes, people may have their information added to the
national crime databases, even though they committed no crime. In what
version of America do we think that is okay?
The Democrats claim Republicans don't care about gun violence. But
while they may repeat this over and over and over, it doesn't make it
any more true. If you look at the record, House Republicans have worked
tirelessly to combat gun violence by enacting meaningful laws to put
more resources into mental health, to provide training for guidance
counselors, and fund grants for law enforcement.
The other side, meanwhile, is actively trying to defund police. And
just last week, they voted against giving money to schools to enhance
security.
Democrats refused to work with us on legislation that would actually
do something; that would actually reduce the rate of gun violence in
this country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. And instead, they are taking advantage of
tragedies. That is what they are doing. They are taking advantage of
tragedies to promote their agenda to destroy our constitutional rights,
and it is shameful.
I will tell you this: When Republicans take back the majority next
year, we will work to begin to address the root causes of the violence
and the mayhem in our country. That day cannot come soon enough.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Mrs. McBath), the sponsor of the bill.
Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, the
Federal Extremist Protection Order Act, a bill that would empower loved
ones and law enforcement to help prevent mass shootings before they
happen.
Every family in every community in our Nation deserves access to
these lifesaving measures. No child, no parent deserves to live in fear
of gun violence.
And we are paying for it. We are paying for this gun violence every
single day. Day after day, hour after hour, we are paying for the
weapons of war on our streets with the blood of our children in our
schools.
We are paying for the unfettered access with mothers and fathers
waiting in line for a DNA test, forced to find out if it is their child
that is riddled with bullets and maimed beyond recognition; if it is
their child whose blood now blankets the floor of the classroom where
they should be learning math and science and English.
We are paying for this deadly gun culture with the lives of American
people; with the lives of those that we in this body took an oath to
protect.
The American people are absolutely exhausted. We cannot continue to
be the only country in the world where we let gun violence happen again
and again and again. An entire generation is growing up learning that
the adults that they look up to cannot, or rather, choose not to
protect them.
Now, we all agree that this status quo is unacceptable. We all
understand that the murder of our children cannot continue. We need
policies that will give our law enforcement the tools that they need,
the tools they have asked for to help keep guns out of the hands of
those who are a danger to themselves or to others.
How many more victims are we going to memorialize?
What rights do our children have as they grow in our lives and in our
hearts?
Parents across the country, in every State, in every community, know
the fear that accompanies the love that we have for our children. It is
a primal fear, a helpless fear, a love so deep that
[[Page H5421]]
we worry and wonder every day where is my child? Are they safe? Are
they going to make it home today?
Don't our parents have the right to send their kids off to school
without the fear of them not coming home?
Don't our children have the right to live free from the trauma that
only stepping over a friend covered in blood could ever bring?
How many more parents must receive the phone call that I did when I
was told that my son was murdered; the phone call that confirms that
fear that my child is dead and that I was unable to protect him; the
phone call that leads you to cry out to God in your grief?
Was my child afraid? Did he feel pain as the bullets ripped through
his skin? Did he know he was loved more than he could ever imagine?
We can do better than that. We must be better than this. We cannot be
the only nation in the world where our children are torn apart on
Tuesday and their deaths are gone from the news cycle by Wednesday.
And that is why, in the decade since my son was taken from me by a
man with a gun, simply for playing loud music in his car, that I made a
promise to Jordan and to my community, and to the American people,
a promise that I would continue to fight this battle for the rest of my
life, the fight to make sure that not one more parent is forced to join
this ever-growing club, the club that no mother or no father ever wants
to be a part of.
I promised that I would take all of the devotion as a mother that I
have for my child, all the love that I poured out of my soul into my
child, that I would do everything in my power to keep Jordan's
community safe; yes, you, my community; that the time would come where
we would be able to make a difference in the lives of our children and
our children's children, and this is that time. This is that moment.
We are facing a challenge of our lifetime on the issue of our era.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an extra 30
seconds.
Mrs. McBATH. This is that time. This is that moment. We are facing
the challenge of our lifetime. This is the issue of our era, and today,
we must vote with the majority of American people that agree with us.
We vote to provide law enforcement and family members the tools that
they need to prevent these mass shootings. We vote to save lives. We
vote to do what is right. We vote to stop the uniquely American horror
that is ripping our families apart.
God bless us. And I ask God to cover us in doing the right thing.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
{time} 0930
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Jordan for yielding
time.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 2377. I have five grandchildren. I would
do anything--anything--to protect my five grandchildren, including, as
a last resort, shooting someone if I had to, to protect the lives of my
grandchildren.
Democrat bills that we have heard this week want to take away my
right--my right--to protect my grandchildren. They want to take away
the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect their own children and
grandchildren and wives and brothers and sisters. This bill takes away
due process from law-abiding citizens.
Can you imagine if you had a disgruntled ex or somebody who hates you
because of your political views, and they go to a judge and say, ``Oh,
this person is dangerous''? That judge would take away their guns, lean
on the side of conservatism and take away their guns, without that
person even having knowledge that there was a court hearing that would
take away their guns. This is wrong.
When Republicans were in the majority, we actually passed legislation
that was signed into law that would have prevented mass shootings.
These bills will not. We need to join together, Republicans and
Democrats. I hope they can do it in the Senate and get something done
that actually saves children's lives.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a June 7, 2022,
Washington Post article titled ``No, red-flag gun laws don't violate
due process rights.''
[From the Washington Post]
No, Red-Flag Gun Laws Don't Violate Due Process Rights
such laws, also known as `extreme-risk protection orders,' are popular
and are embraced by some republican politicians. but some gun-rights
activists say they violate the fifth and fourteenth amendments.
(Perspective by Joseph Blocher and Jake Charles, June 7, 2022)
``Red flag'' laws, which allow guns to be temporarily taken
from people who pose a risk of harm to themselves or others,
are one of the few gun-safety regulations that currently have
bipartisan support. ``Tm generally inclined to think some
kind of red-flag law is a good idea,'' Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
said last week, after the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.
Key senators have told reporters it's possible an agreement
could be reached this week on legislation that would include
a provision incentivizing more states to pass such laws.
There is strong popular support for red-flag laws--also
known as extreme-risk laws--in both parties, and more than a
dozen states have adopted them in the past few years alone
(bringing the total to 19 plus the District of Columbia).
Social science research suggests that they work, most
strikingly in preventing gun suicides.
So what prevents their wider adoption, including at the
federal level? Some gun-rights advocates and their allies in
Congress say they violate the due process clauses of the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. ``Depriving citizens of
Life, Liberty, or Property, without Due Process, is a clear
violation of our Constitution,'' Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)
tweeted last week. ``Every member of Congress swears an oath
to `support and defend' the Constitution. Voting for, or
introducing, Red Flag Laws is a blatant violation of that
oath.''
But such criticisms are off base. Politicians considering
red-flag laws, whether in Congress or state legislatures,
should do so based on an accurate understanding of what the
Constitution requires. It indeed guarantees ``due process of
law'' whenever the government seeks to deprive a person of
``life, liberty, or property.'' But the basic design of
existing extreme-risk laws is fully consistent with
constitutional commands, as we showed in a recent law review
article.
In the states where they exist, here's how red-flag laws
work: A limited set of people--law enforcement officers,
family or household members, and sometimes others--can
petition a judge to issue an ``extreme-risk protection
order'' (ERPO) requiring a person to temporarily surrender
his or her firearms and refrain from acquiring new ones.
Depending on the state, the burden of proof the petitioner
must meet (to establish that the gun owner indeed presents a
risk) varies from ``probable cause'' to ``clear and
convincing'' evidence. If the petition is successful, the
court can enter a short-term emergency ERPO, usually lasting
two weeks or less. In many cases, that's all that is needed--
the crisis can be averted. A longer-term ERPO can only be
entered after a full hearing at which the petitioner again
bears the burden of proof, usually at a higher threshold, and
at which the gun owner can contest the order.
If there is a constitutional flaw in this basic structure,
it has apparently escaped notice of the entire United States
judiciary: Courts have unanimously rejected Second Amendment
and due process challenges to ERPO laws, and for good reason.
Perhaps surprisingly, the Second Amendment has not been the
focus of the constitutional complaints. That's because even
ardent Second Amendment defenders like Justice Amy Coney
Barrett recognize that ``legislatures have the power to
prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns''--as Barrett
wrote in 2019 case, when she was a judge on the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Courts reviewing extreme-
risk laws have upheld them on that very basis. In 2016, for
example, a Connecticut appellate court relied on U.S. Supreme
Court precedent in holding that Connecticut's statute ``does
not implicate the second amendment, as it does not restrict
the right oflawabiding, responsible citizens to use arms in
defense of their homes.''
The crux of the political debate has therefore focused on
due process--although due-process challenges to red-flag laws
have fared no better. Nor should they have. A prime complaint
about red-flag laws is that they allow an order to issue
before the gun owner has an opportunity to contest the
evidence, but the Supreme Court has long recognized that
there are ``extraordinary situations where some valid
governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing
the hearing until after the event,'' as Justice John Marshall
Harlan II wrote in a 1971 case. Examples include restraining
orders filed by one domestic partner against another, civil
commitments for mental illness and the temporary removal of
children from parental custody in emergency situations (for
instance, when there are credible allegations of abuse). In
situations like these, delaying urgent action until after a
full hearing can lead to catastrophic outcomes.
[[Page H5422]]
Given that the Constitution allows emergency action to
temporarily remove a person's child before a full hearing,
it's hard to argue that it prohibits emergency action to
temporarily remove a person's guns. Quite simply, the
Constitution does not require society to wait until the
trigger is pulled.
Though they vary in their particulars, existing extreme-
risk laws contain several important procedural safeguards
that the Supreme Court has recognized help to forestall abuse
and ensure due process. They impose the burden on the
petitioner to convince an independent third party; they
guarantee active judicial oversight and provide a prompt
hearing focusing on the degree of risk; and many states
provide specific criminal penalties for filing false or
harassing extreme-risk petitions (in addition to existing
punishments for perjury).
Understanding constitutional requirements is important not
only for lawyers and judges, but for those debating gun
regulation in public discourse. Time and again, arguments
based on misunderstandings of the Constitution have been used
to derail reasonable gun regulation. After Sandy Hook, for
example, an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted to
expand the existing system of background checks for gun
sales. Of the minority opposed--some strongly so--the most
common reason was that doing so would violate the Second
Amendment, yet that position has no support in legal
doctrine.
We should not once again make the mistake of blaming the
Constitution for inaction on gun laws. The structure of
extreme-risk laws is entirely consistent with not only the
Second Amendment but also the consitutional guarantee of due
process.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I want to excoriate as absolute nonsense,
pernicious nonsense, what we just heard from Mr. Johnson, from Mrs.
Lesko, and what I presume we will hear for the rest of the debate on
this bill.
Red flag laws are in effect in 19 States and the District of
Columbia. Every court that has considered them has found them
constitutional. Every court has said that they meet the requirements of
procedural due process--every single court.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for bringing his superior knowledge of our Constitution and
the law of the land to bear in this important debate for the children.
Yesterday, as we had the debate on so many other pieces of
legislation which passed with bipartisan support, we said it was of the
children, by the children, and for the children. ``Of them'' because
they are suffering. ``By them'' because they are testifying in the
Congress of the United States, apparently to no avail to some in the
Congress, but making an emotional appeal of the facts of their case to
the American people, and again, all of it for the children.
The Protecting Our Kids Act, I thank the chairman for bringing that
to the floor. The legislation passed yesterday. It has strong steps to
save lives, whether it is raising the age to purchase weapons of war,
outlawing bump stocks and high-capacity magazines designed for mass
murder, cracking down on gun trafficking and ghost guns, and
strengthening safe storage requirements, to name just a few.
Today, the House builds on this progress by passing our Federal
Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, another lifesaving measure aimed at
preventing the next tragic shooting before it is too late.
Too often, what we know is that those who pose a risk of gun violence
show early warning signs: a menacing message online, a troubled message
to a loved one. Yet, in too many communities across the country,
concerned family members, friends, and law enforcement have no legal
pathway to get deadly weapons out of the hands of these troubled
individuals.
Under the leadership of Congresswoman Lucy McBath, the House will
pass a bill empowering family members and law enforcement to seek a
Federal court order to temporarily remove access to a gun from
individuals who pose a threat to themselves and to others.
Thanks to the leadership of Congressman Salud Carbajal, this
legislation will include incentives to encourage more States to adopt
extreme risk protection order laws of their own. The incentives exist
in many States, but not all.
Doing so will not only protect from mass shootings but also from the
quiet daily massacre by suicide and gun crimes. These so-called red
flag laws by some are saving lives in the 19 States and, as was
mentioned, the District of Columbia, where they have been enacted. The
statistics show that.
The American people are overwhelmingly for this lifesaving measure.
Recent polling shows 8 in 10 Americans support it.
Madam Speaker, as you know, and you have experienced it in your
State, gun violence in our Nation has reached a fever pitch in recent
weeks. People keep saying again and again and again that we have gun
violence. I would say it is not again and again and again; it is
always. It is not one after another; it is ongoing, whether it is mass
murders that are high profile or every night in cities and places
across our country.
Sadly, too many Members think, in the wake of gun violence, a moment
of silence is sufficient--a moment of silence. As Mr. Higgins said
following the Buffalo massacre, we have a moment of silence, and then
we must have action--and then we must have action.
Today, all Members have a chance to take action, to vote for another
strong step, giving our communities a chance to prevent the next
massacre. The next massacre could be a family tragedy, so it is
personal as well as community protection.
Indeed, if you knew where and when the next gun incident would be,
how could you oppose having the tools to possibly stop it? If you knew
that children could possibly be exposed because of the action of
someone practically a child themselves, still a teenager, having access
to a weapon of war, why wouldn't you want to take action to stop it?
I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in
a strong bipartisan ``aye'' vote for this legislation. In States across
the country, this is not partisan at all. Let's hope that it will not
be in the House of Representatives.
At the same time, we remain very prayerful and hopeful that the
Senate will soon reach bipartisan agreement so that we will move a step
closer to freeing our children from the horrors of gun violence, once
and for all--our children, whether it is violence to them or violence
to their parents and family members.
For the children, of the children, by the children, that is our
mission. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Good).
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, one of the most fundamental,
God-given rights that we possess, which is uniquely protected in our
American Constitution, is the right to keep and bear arms for self-
defense and to ensure that we remain a free people.
We have seen under this administration, supported by the Democrat
majority in this Congress, an unprecedented trampling on the basic
rights of American citizens over the past 2 years. Our most precious
freedoms to assemble together, to go where you want, to worship as you
choose, to earn a living or operate your business, to keep your job or
your employees, what you have to wear on your face, and whether or not
you are required to receive a vaccine that you may not want or may not
need all trampled upon by Democrats in power.
Democrats simply do not believe in the inalienable rights of American
citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believe
that your rights come from government, and they, therefore, have the
right to take them away.
The guarantee provided by our Founders to ensure we remain free from
foreign invasion and, yes, as our Founders clearly warned us, from an
oppressive government like we see in Canada, Australia, and the
Democrats' beloved Communist China is the constitutional right of law-
abiding citizens to be armed as they choose.
Over and over, the Founders affirmed and reiterated that Congress has
no power--no power--to limit the right of lawful citizens to arm
themselves. H.R. 2377 would create a nationwide system of red flag
laws, undermining the constitutional guarantee of due process, which is
required before depriving any American of their Second Amendment right.
Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Carbajal).
Mr. CARBAJAL. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative McBath for
yielding time.
[[Page H5423]]
Madam Speaker, 8 years ago, my own community of Isla Vista near UC
Santa Barbara saw firsthand the horror and the trauma that a mass
shooting brings. In 8 years since that attack, we have stood in
solidarity with other communities reeling from the hundreds of mass
shootings in our schools, our shopping malls, our houses of worship,
and our Main Streets.
Madam Speaker, I share the outrage and frustration of the majority of
Americans and many of my colleagues here in Congress that there are
some in Congress who have kept us from doing our job to protect
children by blocking commonsense gun safety measures.
I stand before you today as the author of a gun safety measure that
has enjoyed bipartisan support, that has been implemented in
Republican- and Democratic-led States alike, and that has been proven
to reduce gun deaths and stop mass shootings before they happen. I am
speaking about extreme risk protection orders or, as they are more
commonly known, red flag laws.
These laws are simple. If an individual is showing signs that they
may be a danger to themselves or others, a police officer or a family
member can, through due process, go to a judge and request an extreme
risk protection order, which temporarily bars that person from owning
or purchasing a firearm. These laws are already on the books in 19
States and the District of Columbia, and in those places, they have
saved lives.
Part of the reason these laws work is because warning signs of mass
shootings are not as rare as you might think. In fact, a U.S. study of
school violence found that the majority of incidents come with clear
warning signs, which we have seen before in some of our most infamous
school shootings: Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, and even Uvalde.
That is why, in the wake of these tragedies, Republican- and
Democratic-led States have approved red flag laws that have gone on to
intervene in thousands of potentially violent attacks before they
happen.
Florida residents, for example, have used ERPOs more than 8,000 times
since they implemented their red flag law after the Parkland shooting.
California implemented their red flag law after the UCSB Isla Vista
attack in my community.
Police officers have used it to prevent numerous workplace attacks
and other violent incidents. These red flag laws are also critical to
reducing the largest form of gun deaths in our country, suicide by
firearm.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
{time} 0945
Mr. CARBAJAL. Madam Speaker, as someone who lost one of my own
siblings to suicide by a gun, I personally am proud to stand in this
Chamber today in her memory, Carmen, to see my bill come to a vote.
This measure is popular, bipartisan, and common sense. That may be
why Republican Senators have introduced similar legislation in the
past, to incentivize States to expand red flag laws and support States
that already have them.
There is no bill that we can pass that would be the panacea to solve
our violence overnight, but with this measure and those that we passed
yesterday, we can make a major difference. We need to do this now.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, Alexis de Tocqueville said that the
defining trait of socialism is ``a profound opposition to personal
liberty and scorn for individual reason, a complete contempt for the
individual.''
Socialists are hostile to our Bill of Rights specifically because it
protects the individual against the State by guaranteeing our most
fundamental rights and the means to defend them, and the guarantee that
we can't be deprived of them except through due process of law.
You have the right to have your day in court, to face your accuser,
to present evidence on your behalf, to contest the charges brought
against you.
Now, if someone is adjudged to be dangerously mentally ill, of course
they should not have access to firearms or to any other weapons. They
shouldn't be on the street where they can do harm at all. They should
be confined, during the course of their illness, so they can be treated
and not endanger themselves or others.
We already have commitment procedures that address this in concert
with our Constitution. In that process, you appear before a judge, you
can know the charges, you can face your accuser, you can plead your
case, and you can present evidence on your own behalf in open court.
But not under this bill. Under this bill, an anonymous accuser,
including a jilted date or an ex-roommate, can trigger a secret
proceeding that you don't even know is happening until the police show
up at your door to strip you of your Second Amendment right to self-
defense, and the burden then falls on you to try and restore it.
And it won't stop here. The left has already branded speech they
disagree with as dangerous.
But they are right about one thing. This is an extreme risk bill. It
is an extreme risk to our most fundamental individual rights as
Americans.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Republican speakers obviously have more regard for their politics and
for the National Rifle Association than they do for the lives of our
children. We see that every moment here, when they keep repeating the
words that this is unconstitutional, when courts in 18 States and the
District of Columbia have found them constitutional, and Supreme Court
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, on the 7th Circuit, said: History is
consistent with common sense. It demonstrates that legislatures have
the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns.
So I don't think we should hear lectures on Democrats don't care
about due process. We do. We also care about children's lives.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act. Before the Emanuel church
shooting, before the Uvalde, El Paso, and Parkland shootings and so
many others, shooters showed warning signs or even flat out said what
they were going to do.
Before many die by suicide by gun, they show warning signs that they
may be a danger to themselves.
In these situations, there is often evidence that something terrible
is going to happen. We know it, we can even articulate it, but we are
often powerless to stop it.
This bill remedies this situation. This bill would help prevent
individuals who pose an imminent threat to themselves or others from
accessing firearms, by allowing law enforcement and family members to
file a court petition in Federal court to temporarily--temporarily--
block dangerous individuals' access to guns.
Despite the claim that this bill invades due process, this is
absolutely false. It is a thinly veiled attempt to prevent any and all
regulations of firearms in this country. As the chairman has said, it
has been found constitutional. There is a hearing before the seizure
with a judge, with witnesses, testimony under oath, affidavits. The
judge makes a finding. It happens all the time in domestic violence
cases.
These guns can only be taken away for a temporary period after a
hearing with a judge, who determines on balance that it is necessary to
do so for the safety of the gun owner or the community.
This bill is so common sense. It has historically been bipartisan.
The last Republican President supported it, introduced by Senator
Lindsey Graham in the Senate.
I thank Congresswoman McBath. Our Republican colleagues this morning
have been talking about their passion for the Second Amendment, their
devotion to the right to bear arms. If only for a moment they showed
the same devotion, the same commitment to preserving the life of young
people, the right to live a life free from gun violence, to go to a
movie theater or church or synagogue and not worry
[[Page H5424]]
about their life and their liberty because they are gunned down by
someone who shouldn't have a firearm.
This is absolutely the most commonsense proposal that will come
before Congress on guns. Keep them out of the hands of people who are
dangerous to themselves and others. For God's sake, vote for this bill.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
Mr. GAETZ. Madam Speaker, if House Democrats were so worried about
violence, they wouldn't open the borders, open the prisons, and then
disarm law-abiding Americans who want to protect themselves and protect
their families.
Chairman Nadler says that Republicans shouldn't lecture about
constitutional rights, but it was the last Democrat speaker, Mr.
Cicilline, who in the House Judiciary Committee said, Spare me the
bullshit about constitutional rights. So pardon us for standing up for
the Constitution and the very due process that ensures that we are able
to have a civil, functioning society in this country.
Speaker Pelosi asks the question: Well, if you knew when the next act
of violence would be, why wouldn't you want to stop it? What is this,
the United States Congress, or the plot for the movie ``Minority
Report''?
The best you could ever hope to have in terms of warning is what we
had in the Parkland case, where a neighbor saw Nikolas Cruz preparing
for a school shooting, called the FBI, and because they were so focused
on the bureaucracy, they didn't take action.
That is why I am against federalizing the regular police and it is
why I am against federalizing the school police, because the more the
FBI was involved, the more they botched the case, and maybe there are
people dead who didn't need to be.
These red flag laws violate our Second Amendment rights, our Fifth
Amendment rights, and when they are done at the national level, they
violate our Tenth Amendment rights. It is crazy that we are considering
legislation to bribe the States to take rights away from our fellow
Americans, and it is nuts that Republicans in the Senate, the very
Republicans who say they are the classic, liberty-minded conservatives,
they are now working with Democrats on this very endeavor to Federalize
the school police and to engage in this bribery for the sake of
deprivation of rights.
Let me give you this warning, my friends: It is no victory, as Mr.
Carbajal said, that in my beloved Florida we have used red flag laws
8,000 times. There weren't 8,000 school shooters we stopped, probably
not even 8,000 criminals.
What we do see is that these red flag laws are used in divorce
proceedings, they are used in every type of dispute and shouldn't be a
cudgel that way. We will stand up for their rights. That is no
bullshit; we will.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to use profanity on
the floor of the House of Representatives.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, since the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut,
about 10 years ago, we have not enacted any substantive firearm
restrictions to prevent children from being slaughtered in our schools.
In fact, not since the massacre of first graders and their educators
at Sandy Hook, but in the 20 years since the shooting at Columbine, we
have not enacted any new meaningful restrictions on firearms.
We have an obligation to protect our constituents, and we have a
responsibility to keep the American people safe.
After each of these instances, we hear from our friends across the
aisle that we must address mental health. I agree. But we must prevent
those who are intent on harming themselves or others from having access
to dangerous weapons and carrying out their intent.
That is why I support this thoughtful proposal balancing public
safety and the individual's right to due process.
Let's just take the massacre in Uvalde. Should there have been a law
in place in Texas, a red flag law, perhaps the gunman could have been
stopped. There were plenty of warning signs, including the gunman with
pictures of a cat he had killed and his frequent online threats to teen
girls.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights,
and Civil Liberties, I take the due process clause seriously. In this
legislation, a court would need to make an individualized
determination, looking at specific facts before issuing an order. A
full hearing is required in 72 hours, where the party can have personal
attendance and object.
This legislation is absolutely necessary, and I urge all my
colleagues to support it. We have a moral obligation to act.
Yesterday, this body, with a bipartisan vote, adopted the Protecting
Our Kids Act, which would make meaningful updates to our Nation's gun
laws. We must go further, I believe, and reenact the assault weapons
bans.
These bills would make a meaningful difference in gun violence in the
United States and save American lives. God would not look kindly upon
the use of weapons to kill his children, as happened in Uvalde, Texas.
Our votes are not political calculations; they are obligations. We
have a duty to protect God's children.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Michigan (Mrs. McClain).
Mrs. McCLAIN. Madam Speaker, I think what we need, again, is a little
truth, transparency, and consistency.
I will share, as a mother of four, I resent the fact that you tell me
that I don't care about children. In fact, when you have soft-on-crime
policies, I need my Second Amendment right to protect my own children
because the soft-on-crime policies don't help.
During these debates, on these unconstitutional--you know the thing
we all took an oath to uphold--gun bills, the Democrats have been
making the claim, well, if you can't buy alcohol or cigarettes, you
shouldn't be able to buy an AR-15.
All right. Let's stick with that concept. Here is a concept: Apply it
throughout every form. But let's talk about a couple of things that the
Democrats feel you are mature enough to do under the age of 18.
Because, once again, their standards clearly aren't consistent. What a
concept, to be consistent.
Democrats believe that under the age of 18, you should be able to get
an abortion. While you are at it, don't even talk to your parents about
it.
Under the age of 18, Democrats think you should be able to change
your sex without notifying parents.
At 18, you can vote.
At 18, you can join the military and lay your life on the line for
this country.
And I bet they think that the 18-year-old Buffalo shooter is actually
mature enough to be charged as an adult, right?
So, again, let's have some consistency in our standards.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, do we not hear the cries of the fourth
grader in Uvalde who said, ``All of my friends are dead''?
Would you like to do something about gun slaughter in this country?
Then join us.
One commonsense way we can do this is by passing my friend and
colleague, Congresswoman McBath's, Federal Extreme Risk Protection
Order Act, red flag laws.
We know that in 46 percent of shootings, the attacker expressed
interest in harming others. There was a cry for help, a warning.
Someone knew that violence could erupt. Someone had the ability to
intervene. We have a responsibility to intervene.
Representative McBath's bill would do just that, intervene when
someone is a risk to themselves or others. We do not have to live this
way. Fearful for our children at school, at movies, the grocery store,
or the TLA on South Street in Philadelphia.
We do not have to live this way, and we don't want to: 79 percent of
Americans support red flag laws and 67 percent of gun owners.
Stop sentencing our children to having to lament that all of their
friends are dead.
[[Page H5425]]
{time} 1000
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, next week will mark 5 years since the
fateful morning on the baseball field where 136 rounds were fired in an
attack on Republicans. Only by the grace of God were 20 or more of my
Republican colleagues and staff not killed by a crazed terrorist
wielding guns on that baseball field. So this is not a theoretical
exercise for many of us on this side of the aisle.
I say this not to take away from the tragedies that any one of us has
experienced, but to highlight the good people on both sides of this
issue can bring our personal experiences to the debate and may see
things differently, while both condemning violence and wanting to act.
When I reflect on that day, it is not about the weapon. It is about
the person, the evil person that is on the other side of that weapon.
It was guns that stopped that killer--two undercover Capitol police
officers. They were only there because Steve Scalise was there. And
he got hit. Otherwise, that terrorist could have easily assassinated 20
to 30 Members of Congress and staff.
Clearly, there are people I don't want to have a gun in their hands
but we can't ignore the hate, the evil that is gripping too many in our
country today. We have laws against murder. Yet, we see murder.
If my little daughter hits her big brother, I want to know why. I
don't blame the stick in her hand. As a physician, common sense tells
me that if we don't look at the events in someone's life that lead to
the thoughts and the feelings that then lead to this horrific murderous
behavior, then we are doing our society a grave injustice. And that is
what is happening. We have seen this movie before.
Did these laws change the disturbing trends that we are seeing?
Previous bans have made no difference. It has been proven. Many of our
communities have gun laws and have even more homicides than ever.
We as Americans need to do some serious soul-searching about
ourselves because something serious has changed in our society over the
last several decades.
Is it the absence of God?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, we had a public school in my district
that was forced by the left and the courts to take down ``thou shalt
not kill'' from in front of the schools.
Is it the breakdown of the family, the disruption of the community,
the implosion of the village? Or is it the destruction of our mental
health system, which, unfortunately, turned everyone onto the streets
instead of reforming our institutions?
It could be all these things and many more, but until America is
willing to take a long, hard look at ourselves and heal what truly ails
us, I fear we are simply doomed to repeat what we have done in the past
and we are doing here today.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), chairman of the Gun Violence
Prevention Task Force.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and thank
Congresswoman McBath and Congressman Carbajal for the great work they
have done to put this together.
Red flag laws are supported by a majority of Americans and nearly 70
percent of gun owners. Red flag laws provide an opportunity for an
intervention if someone demonstrates that they are a danger to
themselves or to others. California's red flag laws have been used 21
times to prevent mass shootings.
The bill we are considering today was originally authored by Senator
Lindsey Graham, a Republican, and is very similar to the Florida red
flag bill that was signed by then-Governor Rick Scott, also a
Republican, and today a U.S. Senator. Neither of those two have ever
been accused of being antigun or anti-Constitution.
We know red flag laws save lives and we know the issues raised by the
other side of the aisle are a stretch at best. If someone files a false
complaint, they are subject to a $5,000 fine and 5 years in jail. This
bill will save lives, and I urge you to vote ``yes.''
The only real question is how much more bloodshed is needed to spur
us to do the right thing and help us keep our kids and our communities
safe.
Please vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, from the debate and from the whole
premise of this red flag law proposal, you would think that there was
no such way to deal with this problem in America. It has been pointed
out that 19 States have red flag laws already, but there are 50 States
that already have a way to have someone adjudicated minimally
dangerous.
Every single State, the premise that we can identify somebody who
might pose a risk to themselves or others is the whole premise why red
flag laws might work. But that is the same premise that allows Baker
Acts to work in every single State and Washington, D.C.
The difference is that the person charged, the person accused of
being this mentally incompetent, mentally dangerous person, has the
right to confront their accuser. And that is what they are trying to
undo. It already exists in law. Everyone knows that we cannot accept
our children being murdered. We can't accept our communities being
destroyed and gutted, not just by violence, by increasing violence, by
increasing acts of despair; not just shootings, but suicides--and the
number one cause of death for 18- to 45-year-olds--fatal overdoses.
There is something going on wrong. It is not the guns, it is the
culture and the evildoer. When do we stop blaming the evildoer, the
doer of evil deeds? And if you could identify who that doer of evil
deeds might be, wouldn't you want to take them away from the weapons
instead of taking the weapons away from them?
If you don't take the person away, they can get other guns. They
might even get a car and drive through a parade.
Let's keep our communities safe. Let's keep our kids safe. Let's
focus on the real problem and not just run the same play over and over
again. The Democrats have a preconceived solution to every emergency,
and it is shameful to watch this exploitation of violence to achieve a
Democrat-longstanding objective to undermine our Second Amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R.
2377, the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act. Included in this
legislation, is the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, which I have
been proud to co- lead for many years with my friend and colleague,
Congressman Carbajal.
Madam Speaker, April 16, 2007, 15 years ago, 32 Virginia Tech
students, in my home and Commonwealth, were killed by a young man who
was well-known to the community to have paranoid schizophrenia. He had
been hospitalized. He had been picked up by the police. He had been
banned from classes. There was every reason in the world for him to be
on the background checklist. Yet, he was able to buy the weapons
legally that killed those 32 kids.
In 2014, I had a long conversation with a friend who was deeply
depressed. He was having trouble getting out of bed, trouble finding a
psychiatrist who would treat him. I made some calls to try to find
somebody, and then didn't do anything but worry, and was stunned when
he got out of bed to go buy a gun and kill himself.
To this day, I so regret that I did not call his wife, and we went
together to the court to get him on the background checklist. We have
all lost too many friends. We all are grief-struck by the massacre of
children.
Red flag laws may not protect everyone, but it will save many lives
and it is a start.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, do you ever wonder how many of our
colleagues in the Democrat aisle receive
[[Page H5426]]
Bloomberg money to advocate for taking away Americans' Second Amendment
rights? I do.
You hear about the NRA. You sure don't want to confess the Bloomberg
donations that you receive as you emasculate America's rights. Yet, we
hear about your polling. But you know what, 6 in 10 Americans,
including almost half of Democrats, support armed officers and leaders
at schools to protect their children. Democrats oppose that.
We hear about due process. Due process doesn't mean you have an ex-
parte hearing by an undisclosed informant who comes in and says, Look,
we think this person is a danger to themselves or others, when the
undisclosed informant has a grudge or an axe to grind. That is why you
have 8,000 of those in Florida.
Due process doesn't mean we take away your rights and then you get to
petition to have those rights reinstated. No, this bill is designed
specifically to get around the laws that are present in 50 States that
do address due process and do address people who are a danger to
themselves and society. This bill is ripe for abuse.
Some States have enacted similar laws. In Connecticut, for example,
nearly a third of all ex-parte orders are overturned once a judge hears
both sides of the story.
And why is that? You have already taken away their rights. But almost
a third of them are overturned.
In a markup last week, there was some confusion as to what due
process means. It does not mean that you can deprive an individual of
their rights first and then later let them have a hearing to reinstate
those rights. But that is what this bill does. Deprivation first, a
hearing later.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise. I rise today to
address the indication that what we Democrats are doing is meaningless.
Meaningless to ban bump stocks. Well, tell that to the 60 people who
were murdered at the Mandalay hotel where a gunman fired more than a
thousand rounds in short order.
Meaningless to raise the age to 21 to purchase an assault weapon.
Explain that the ghosts of the 10 people who were killed at Tops
grocery store. Make it clear to those 19 babies who were murdered at an
elementary school in Texas.
Meaningless? Tell that to the lives of those that have been lost. No,
it is not meaningless.
Madam Speaker, I tell my dear friends that what we are doing right
now is more than common sense. It is just good sense to prevent people
from killing other people.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Mrs. Greene).
Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, well, we don't agree on much
these days here in Congress but I know there is one thing we all agree
on. We all agree that we really like guns. See, we are the special
privileged elites. We are the ones in this Chamber being protected by
guns while the American people don't have men and women with guns
outside their homes. Of course, not at any gun-free school zone they
are not protected, nor at work.
But here at Congress, the same Congress that is voting to send just
millions and millions of dollars worth of guns to Ukraine so that they
can defend themselves is the same Congress working as hard as possible
to take away the Second Amendment rights from Americans. You see, our
job here is to protect rights like due process and the Second Amendment
rights of Americans, not strip them away.
Red flag gun laws violate Americans' due process rights and this is
the type of thing that we shouldn't be passing in this Congress,
especially while we enjoy the very privileged elite special protection
of guns.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 6\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from Ohio has 11 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to make an urgent plea for
action.
How can we listen to an 11-year-old girl talk about smearing herself
with her own dead friend's blood so she doesn't get killed and think
that the appropriate response is thoughts and prayers. It is
unacceptable.
We have the power to make real change and end gun violence. Right
now, the American people are calling on us to protect their kids, their
family, and their community. I am not going to sit on the sidelines and
neither should this legislative body. If not now, when? Every Member
should support commonsense gun safety legislation. Not taking away your
right to own a gun or your constitutional right, but use common sense,
that, as my grandmother used to say, is not very common today.
Madam Speaker, the people of America are counting on us. Act now.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, we have heard time and time again that the Democrats say
this is not a violation of due process; not a violation of our
constitutional rights. It most certainly is.
Remember the basics here. Someone doesn't like you. They file a
complaint. There is a hearing within 24 hours, a hearing that you are
not allowed to attend, you are not allowed to be there to face your
accusers. The government takes your gun or guns. Several days later
there is a real hearing--well, a real hearing with a lower standard.
The burden of proof for the government is not beyond a reasonable doubt
to deny you your constitutional right. It is a clear and convincing
standard. So a lower standard to take away your fundamental liberty
when you didn't commit any crime. If that is not a violation of due
process, I do not know what is.
{time} 1015
Title I of this bill, it will all be administered by the Biden
administration Department of Justice, the same Department of Justice
that got a letter from a leftwing political organization and, 5 days
later, sent a memorandum to every single U.S. attorney in this country
saying this: Set up a dedicated line of threat communication on
parents; use counterterrorism measures against moms and dads who had
the nerve to show up at a school board meeting and speak up for their
kid.
Then, 16 days after that memorandum went out, the FBI sends an email
out and says: Put a threat tag, a designation, a label, on moms and
dads who did show up at school board meetings who someone filed a
complaint about on that snitch line, and investigate them. That same
Biden administration Justice Department will be administering this law.
That is why we are so against this measure and why it is so darn
dangerous. They can say all day long it doesn't violate due process; it
most certainly does, and it is going to be administered by a Justice
Department that has already proven they are willing to go after parents
who speak up for their kids.
That is why this bill is so terrible, why Republican Senators are
pushing this and, as Mr. Gaetz from Florida said, trying to bribe
States to implement this when we have the history of the Biden Justice
Department and know what this thing is going to look like and how it is
going to violate due process. That is what is wrong with this
legislation and why Republicans are so darn against this thing.
I hope they will come to their senses, stand up for the law-abiding
American citizens and their fundamental liberties, and vote this thing
down.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding,
and let me personally on this floor--I have said it many times--offer
my sympathy to Lucy McBath for the pain that she continues to live with
for the loss of her son.
Let me say to my friends, your arguments could not be more absurd.
Over these last 2 days, I have heard welfare
[[Page H5427]]
state; I am a person of faith as all who profess such, challenging
whether or not we have faith; speaking about the absurdity of not
understanding the Constitution; disrespecting the democratic system
that we have; that there will be an outrageous attack on individuals
with the red flag laws.
You are just simply wrong. My plea is to the American people because
you can force people who masquerade as believing that it is a shame for
children to die, but yet do nothing. This is the side of doing
absolutely nothing but casting aspersions and challenging what is
right.
Red flag laws are right. Why? Indiana passed it in 2005, and in years
since, the State's firearms suicide rate has gone down 7.5 percent.
They work. A little boy, 16 years old, in New York was getting ready to
shoot up his students, had shotguns at home. An order was put forward,
and he admitted that not having the guns in the home was helpful and
the order helped him.
Is there no desire to do something in the name of those who died
wrongly in Buffalo? Is there no desire?
Are you not in any way aware of Zaire, a mother's child trying to
work in a job and was severely injured?
Are you not aware of Amerie, 10 years old, who died and bled out as
she called 911?
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record two lists of victims from the
Uvalde school shooting and the Buffalo supermarket shooting.
the 21 victims of the uvalde school shooting
Makenna Lee Elrod, 10;
Layla Salazar, 11;
Maranda Mathis, 11;
Nevaeh Bravo, 10;
Jose Manuel Flores Jr., 10;
Xavier Lopez, 10;
Tess Marie Mata, 10;
Rojelio Torres, 10;
Eliahna ``Ellie'' Amyah Garcia, 9;
Eliahna A. Torres, 10;
Annabell Guadalupe Rodriguez, 10;
Jackie Cazares, 9;
Uziyah Garcia;, 9;
Jayce Carmelo Luevanos, 10;
Maite Yuleana Rodriguez, 10;
Jailah Nicole Silguero, 10 ;
Irma Garcia, 48;
Eva Mireles, 44;
Amerie Jo Garza, 10;
Alexandria ``Lexi'' Aniyah Rubio, 10; and
Alithia Ramirez, 10.
the 10 people killed in buffalo, ny
Roberta A. Drury of Buffalo, N.Y., age 32;
Margus D. Morrison of Buffalo, N.Y., age 52;
Andre Mackneil of Auburn, N.Y., age 53;
Aaron Salter of Lockport, N.Y, age 55;
Geraldine Talley of Buffalo, N.Y., age 62;
Celestine Chaney of Buffalo, N.Y., age 65;
Heyward Patterson of Buffalo, N.Y., age 67;
Katherine Massey of Buffalo, N.Y., age 72;
Pearl Young of Buffalo, N.Y., age 77; and
Ruth Whitfield of Buffalo, N.Y., age 86.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are you not aware that 80 percent of people
considering suicide give some sign of their plans, and nearly 80
percent of perpetrators of mass violence in public places make explicit
threats?
Red flag laws are crucial to saving lives.
Yes, the FBI didn't act in Parkland, but a red flag law that was
implemented by a Republican Governor could have been effective. There
would have been another tool.
The Constitution, for some people, they can't seem to read it
clearly. The Second Amendment says to create a militia, but Justice
Scalia, who is idolized by the right, made it very clear that the
Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me say this: Do you want guns in
the hands of dangerous people?
I don't want Republicans shot. That was a dangerous person.
Do you want guns in the hands of gang members? Do you want us to
continue like all of these school shootings in the State of Texas?
Let us realize where your heart is and ensure that the mentally ill
are not the persons that are the ones that are most dangerous, but it
is dangerous people who need red flag laws.
Maybe we need to sit down in the name of John Lewis, who said: Where
is your heart, and where is your soul?
We need to pass this red flag law and all of our gun safety laws, and
the Senate should pass it as well.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2377, the ``Federal Extreme
Risk Protection Order Act of 2021,'' of which I am a cosponsor.
In recent weeks, we have mourned the loss of life resulting from an
ever-increasing number of mass shootings that have shocked the
conscience of our nation.
We have a duty to do all we can to prevent gun violence and end the
bloodshed. Expanding the availability of extreme risk protection orders
is one step we must take because access to firearms can be the
difference between life or death--for one person or many.
These laws have proven to be effective, particularly in reducing
suicides, which involve firearms more than 50 percent of the time.
We know that suicides are often times an impulsive action. Extreme
risk protection orders can generate time and space between the impulse
and someone's access o firearms.
Recognizing that up to 80 percent of people considering suicide give
some sign of their plans and nearly 80 percent of perpetrators of mass
violence in public places make explicit threats or behave in a manner
indicative of their intent to carry out an attack, it is clear these
orders can help save lives.
Yet under federal law, a person suffering from mental illness is
generally not prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm unless
certain statutory circumstances occur.
Similarly, a person who has committed a violent act towards others is
generally not prohibited from accessing firearms under federal law
unless they are the subject of a domestic violence restraining order,
have been convicted of a felony, or have been convicted of a domestic
violence misdemeanor.
In many instances of gun violence, family and friends noticed warning
signs that their loved ones were a significant risk of harm or injury
to themselves or others.
For example, more than a month before the Parkland shooting, someone
close to the shooter provided information to the FBI's tip line about
his gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and
disturbing social media posts, as well as the possibility he might
commit a school shooting. But there was nothing to prohibit him from
possessing firearms.
Extreme risk protection laws empower those close to people at risk of
committing irreversible, hateful acts upon themselves or others to
intervene before tragedy strikes.
Instead of focusing primarily on those who suffer from mental
illness--the majority of whom are not violent--these laws focus on
preventing access to firearms by people who exhibit dangerous
behaviors.
While some states have enacted these laws, including Florida
following the Parkland shooting, many have not. That is why we need
H.R. 2377. Everyone deserves to be safe from gun violence.
This bill would provide nationwide access to extreme risk protection
orders through federal courts, improve implementation of existing state
extreme risk laws, and through grant funding, encourage more states to
adopt such laws.
It would also ensure law enforcement is trained in the use of extreme
risk protection orders, including crisis intervention and making
referrals to social service providers.
When a concerned loved one can demonstrate that an individual
presents a serious threat of injury to themselves or others, they
should have an opportunity to request an order, allowing a judge to
weigh the evidence and issue an order when appropriate.
This bill would also provide important due process protections
including notice, an opportunity to be heard at a hearing within 72
hours after an order is issued if there is a request for a long-term
extreme risk protection order, and a right to counsel.
If an order is dissolved or expires any firearms would have to be
returned.
And the bill would establish a penalty for anyone who files a false
or frivolous petition.
I recently read that 44 percent of Republicans believe mass shootings
are ``something we have to accept as part of a free society,'' and I
simply cannot and will not accept that.
We must never concede defeat to the epidemic of gun violence.
Instead, we must continue to encourage and support the implementation
of evidence-based solutions like extreme risk protection orders.
I would like to thank Representative Lucy McBath and Salud Carbajal
for their dedication to this issue and this bill.
I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation that will
make our communities safer, whether in our homes or on our streets.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their
comments to the Chair.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, the Fifth Amendment
states: ``Nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law.''
It is the paradox of the American experience that so many who swear
to
[[Page H5428]]
preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, the supreme law
enshrining our fundamental rights, are so often predisposed to strip
those rights, always with noble motive.
Weeks ago, the Biden Department of Homeland Security formed a
Disinformation Governance Board to become the arbiter of right think,
even since disbanded. Bad idea.
In 2020, State Governors ordered the healthy to stay out of their
churches for fear of the virus. Do you remember?
In 1971, the Department of Justice obtained a TRO, a prior restraint,
to abridge freedom of the press by forbidding The New York Times to
continue publishing the Pentagon Papers. Lower courts approved that,
too.
In February 1942, another progressive Democrat, FDR, issued an
executive order to intern U.S. citizens and residents of Japanese
descent. It was greatly popular; 60 percent of Americans polled
supported sending their fellow American citizens to concentration
camps. It was approved not just by lower courts but by the United
States Supreme Court in Korematsu, 1944. It took until 2018 for it to
be repudiated. Look again at what you justified.
The long-existing Baker Act provides due process. New York had a red
flag law and did not detect the Buffalo shooter.
The fierce urgency of now meets the protections of fundamental rights
in the United States Constitution, and they must be vindicated.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.
The gentlewoman from Texas asked: Do we want guns in the hand of
dangerous people? The answer to that question is, of course not. But
the question, the only question that matters, is, who constitutes a
dangerous person? Who gets to decide, and why? That is the important
part here. That is what we are talking about when we talk about due
process.
We have laws on the books in, I believe, every State in the Union,
so-called Baker Act provisions to civilly commit persons who are a
danger to themselves and others.
We have such a law in Texas, but we didn't use it. We didn't use it
against a young man who wasn't in school, was harming defenseless
animals, was talking about raping women, was clearly not well. We
didn't use it.
There are more people killed in the United States by hands and knives
than rifles. I don't want a crazy guy in my school with or without the
ability to have a weapon.
We should actually be serious about committing people who have mental
health problems. That would actually solve the problem.
Everything we are doing here today is a pretext. It is a pretext for
targeting, confiscating, and eliminating our ability to have weapons.
When people say things, it is a good idea to believe them.
President Biden: `` . . . whether it is a 9-millimeter pistol or
whether it is a rifle is ridiculous. I am continuing to push to
eliminate the sale of those things.''
Representative Mondaire Jones: ``If the filibuster obstructs us, we
will abolish it. If the Supreme Court objects, we will expand it. . . .
We will do whatever it takes.''
Representative Ocasio-Cortez: Ban semiautomatics.
House Democrats just yesterday tweeted: ``Semiautomatic rifles are
weapons of war.''
Future Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was applauding the New Zealand
Prime Minister's commencement speech about New Zealand's banning
semiautomatic rifles.
Representative Beto O'Rourke: ``Hell, yes, we are going to take your
AR-15.''
Even Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, the gentlewoman from Texas:
``I have held an AR-15 in my hand. I wish I hadn't.'' She talks about a
.50-caliber bullet, which isn't even true.
This is a pretext, and we should oppose this.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Everyone wants to stop mass public shooters, but we haven't
previously punished people merely on the basis of a hunch, and we
shouldn't start now.
Stopping future crimes doesn't work in the movies, and it doesn't
work in real life. What can work is providing mental healthcare and
counseling to those who need it.
If people truly pose a clear danger to themselves or others, they
should be confined to a mental health facility. Simply denying them the
legal right to buy a gun isn't a serious remedy.
Actually, it is already possible to take a dangerous person's guns
away, but Democrats are completely ignoring involuntary commitment laws
that are on the books in all 50 States, presently known as the Baker
Act in Florida or the 5150 code in California. These laws are different
than the ones that are proposed today in one very important aspect:
They involve due process.
What is the difference? In the existing involuntary commitment laws,
known as the Baker Act, there is a mental healthcare expert involved;
there is no such thing in the red flag laws. There is the ability to
challenge your accuser to have a day in court before your rights are
deprived; there is no such opportunity in the red flag laws. You get an
attorney appointed to you if you can't afford it; no such thing in the
red flag laws in many of the States. There are predawn raids that
endanger the lives, not just of the person we are worried about but of
the officers who are tasked with carrying out the raid.
Red flag laws could actually increase the rate of homicide and
suicide. Simply talking to other people about your healthcare issues
and your mental health could help you overcome it, but people will be
reluctant to do that if red flag laws are in place.
Red flag laws have already created thousands of second-class citizens
who no longer have the ability to purchase a firearm for defense in the
States that have red flag laws. If this passes today, there will be
millions of second-class citizens created in this country who have been
deprived of due process and the Second Amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Pfluger).
Mr. PFLUGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a Texan, a father of
three young girls who go to school, and a defender of constitutional
rights. This is not just about doing something; this is about doing
something that matters.
The horror of the school shootings is an unforgivable tragedy due to
the evil we see in people.
There is room for bipartisan solutions. Unfortunately, Democrats
don't want to make law; they want to make politics.
Republicans offered an alternative, a bill that would fund school
resource officers and mental health counselors, close gaps in security,
and strengthen active shooter preparations, with all the costs being
offset by the unused COVID funds. Unfortunately, this has been blocked
by House Democrats.
There is nothing more important than ensuring our children are safe.
I know this because I take my children to school and drop them off and
pick them up. But in no way are the recent tragedies justification for
an infringement upon the rights of law-abiding Americans.
I won't support legislation that infringes upon those rights being
stripped without due process. This is an emotional issue, but it is our
job to step back and have an adult conversation.
{time} 1030
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, to say I yield myself such time as I may
consume is too short to recap these 2 days of the assault on the Second
Amendment.
I will only say, in closing, that it might seem reasonable in this
bill--these five or six or seven different bills cobbled together--it
might seem reasonable that each of them makes sense.
[[Page H5429]]
I ask you, when we changed the Constitution to give an 18-year-old
the right to vote, if we simply said today that we have changed our
mind, we want to make it 21, don't worry about the Constitution.
Wouldn't there be people saying that is ridiculous? Of course, they
would.
If we said the First Amendment gives you a right that should not be
abridged, and suddenly we say, but we are going to have prior restraint
because you might do or say something wrong, we would say that is
ridiculous.
Madam Speaker, today this affront on the Second Amendment is, in
fact, ridiculous. Each piece may seem reasonable, but not in light of
the significance of something enshrined in our Constitution, which is
being systematically attacked by the other side.
Today, we are defending the Second Amendment in a way we have not had
to in a generation. We stand here not because there aren't some
elements that seem reasonable in this legislation, but because at the
end of the day, our friends on the other side of the aisle who are not
willing to support laws that are on the books being enforced and are
not willing to stand behind the law enforcement community that would
like to enforce those, they are affronting and trying to undo the
Second Amendment without a constitutional change.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, extreme risk laws save lives, it is that simple.
Ultimately, that is what this debate should be about--saving lives.
This legislation strikes a proper balance between protecting the due
process rights of people in crisis and preventing tragedy by ensuring
that those who pose an imminent danger to themselves or others do not
have access to firearms.
Madam Speaker, this debate has been surreal. Every court that has
considered the question has concluded that red flag laws afford proper
due process and are constitutional. We already know that extreme risk
laws work, but less than half the States have those laws in effect.
Madam Speaker, let us pass this legislation today, so we can bring
access to this life-savings tool nationwide. We know it is not enough.
We know we need all the provisions of the bill we passed yesterday, and
we should bring back the assault weapons ban. But what we cannot do
should not block us from doing what we can do. We can save thousands of
lives annually, so let us begin.
Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question is ordered on the
bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 202, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No. 255]
YEAS--224
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jacobs (NY)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Upton
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--202
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fleischmann
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Golden
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--2
Fitzgerald
Hollingsworth
{time} 1111
Messrs. MURPHY of North Carolina and BAIRD changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. CICILLINE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress
Barragan (Beyer)
Bass (Blunt Rochester)
Brooks (Fleischmann)
Brown (OH) (Beatty)
Cardenas (Correa)
Cooper (Correa)
Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
Evans (Beyer)
Frankel, Lois (Wasserman Schultz)
Garamendi (Beyer)
Gimenez (Waltz)
Gomez (Garcia (TX))
[[Page H5430]]
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Guest (Fleischmann)
Johnson (SD) (LaHood)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Khanna (Spanberger)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lamb (Blunt Rochester)
Leger Fernandez (Neguse)
Loudermilk (Fleischmann)
McEachin (Beyer)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Moulton (Neguse)
Payne (Pallone)
Price (NC) (Manning)
Ruiz (Correa)
Rush (Jeffries)
Ryan (Beyer)
Sanchez (Garcia (TX))
Sewell (Beatty)
Sires (Pallone)
Spartz (Banks)
Strickland (Takano)
Suozzi (Beyer)
Swalwell (Correa)
Taylor (Fallon)
Torres (NY) (Blunt Rochester)
Van Drew
(Reschenthaler)
Vargas (Takano)
Walorski (Banks)
Waters (Garcia (TX))
Wilson (FL) (Neguse)
____________________