[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 14, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H5538-H5541]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2021, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana (Mr. 
Rosendale) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Speaker, for tonight's Special Order, the House 
Freedom Caucus would like to discuss our constitutional right to keep 
and bear arms.
  I think it is really important that we make exceedingly clear that 
every one of the Members who is going to be here speaking this evening 
is as upset and disturbed by the tragic events in Uvalde as everyone 
else.
  But what we will not do is allow the folks on the left side of the 
aisle to use that as a tool instead of addressing our school safety 
issues, instead of using it as a tool to address the mental health 
issues that are rampant across our Nation, instead to use it as a tool 
to diminish the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens across 
our country, not only reducing the rights but, additionally, putting 
them in jeopardy as well, at the same time that they continue to try to 
undermine law enforcement and compromise the law enforcement community 
to protect these very same individuals so that they are forced to go 
out and make sure that they can defend themselves and their families 
and their property.
  This is a problem that we see taking place time and time again across 
our Nation. This isn't just happening in Seattle, in Portland, and in 
Minneapolis-St. Paul. Unfortunately, we are seeing some of these exact 
same leftist radicals who try to strip the power of law enforcement 
from cities even in the State of Montana.
  No one would ever believe it, but we had ordinances that were 
proposed in Helena, Montana, in Bozeman, Montana, and in Missoula, 
Montana, to try to defund our law enforcement at the same time we see 
crime levels rising everywhere. They are violent crimes. I have talked 
to the attorney general, and he has verified that very information.
  The Members who are going to be here tonight are going to talk about 
the Second Amendment, and they are going to talk about it in great 
detail because they understand, as the million Montanans do, that the 
Second Amendment is about much more than just hunting. As a matter of 
fact, yes, there are people who enjoy hunting with firearms, and they 
also enjoy just target shooting with firearms. They also have weapons 
that are antiques or family heirlooms that have been in their homes and 
families since the 1800s. The most important thing that the Second 
Amendment is about is home security, defending your home and your 
household, and that is what we are going to hear a lot about tonight.
  I am proud to say that Montana ranks as the number one State with the 
most guns per household. That, my friends, is how we can keep those 
crime levels down. Sixty-four percent of Montanans' homes have a gun 
within them. Guess what? Criminals know that. When you put a sign out 
that says we defend our homes, people tend to stay away from those 
areas.
  We have a lot of information to go over this evening, and I have 
several of my colleagues who are going to be here to help me.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my 
dear friend.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Montana for 
yielding to me.
  It is important for us to be here tonight. It is important for us to 
address the attack on the Second Amendment.
  The reason I say that is that some people don't care about that 
Second Amendment. Some people would pack the Court to do away with that 
Second Amendment. That is an important right. It is so important that, 
in the Heller decision, Justice Scalia said: ``The very text of the 
Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the preexistence of the right 
and declares only that it `shall not be infringed.' ''
  What does it mean when you say that right is preexisting? It means 
that it is not given by the government, and thus it cannot be taken 
away by the government. Instead, it is inherent in every individual, 
every person.
  In fact, the reason I use the word ``individual'' is because Justice 
Scalia made very clear, after a very lengthy discussion regarding 
militia versus individuals, that this is an individual right. It isn't 
some kind of collective. It isn't some kind of government-organized 
right. It is a God-given right, and

[[Page H5539]]

thus it is prohibited for government to infringe upon that right.
  Justice Scalia went on to say exactly what I just said. He said: 
``This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any 
manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second 
Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.''
  Anyone who has taken an oath of office to honor and defend the 
Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, how can they 
then vote for legislation that would surrender that right to the 
government?

  My friends across the aisle have failed to remember how important it 
is. I am going to make three quick points.
  Number one: Why is an AR-15 important? It is a gun that is light and 
easy to handle for people who are being attacked. It is a perfect 
defensive weapon. It is important that we remember that.
  Second thing: Good guys with guns actually do save lives. Democrats 
ignored the recent incident in West Virginia where a woman used her 9-
millimeter pistol to stop a shooter who was shooting toward a crowd of 
people, with an AR-15, by the way. They ignored the actions of Stephen 
Willeford, who stopped a shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas.
  If you are relying solely on the police to come--I love my friends of 
the blue. We rely on them. We depend upon them. But when someone is 
attacking you, you don't always have time to wait for those first 
responders to get there.
  My last point is this: If you are 18, 19, or 20 years old, you still 
have that God-given right to defend yourself and to the Second 
Amendment.
  The proposals of this body ignore the fact that the Ninth Circuit 
recently recognized and realized that they have those rights, and they 
struck down a California law that imposed a restriction on 18-, 19-, 
and 20-year-olds.
  Ladies and gentlemen, those who are listening, don't give up your 
right. If you are a Member of Congress, don't take away this important 
God-given right.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Rosendale for letting me speak.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much Representative Biggs, 
one of our strongest defenders of the Second Amendment here in the 
body.
  If the left wants to address this issue, let's be up-front about it. 
Let's be honest about it. Let's stop trying to undermine the Second 
Amendment through changes in statute. Let's stop trying to strip away 
people's rights by inserting something into a law that later would be 
struck down by the Supreme Court.
  If you want to be honest and up-front about stripping away people's 
rights, then come to this floor, propose an amendment to the 
Constitution, debate it here on the floor, send it to the United States 
Senate, see if you can get that done. Then send it back to the people 
of the United States and see how they feel about it.
  That is how this is supposed to take place. You cannot violate the 
Constitution and strip away people's rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), 
my good friend.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Rosendale for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I love what Mr. Biggs was saying, how these are our God-
given rights. That right there is fundamental, and that is why we have 
a government, to secure our God-given rights.
  None of our rights come from politicians. Our rights are not granted 
to us by the executive, by the legislative, or by the judicial branch. 
They are granted to us by God. These are our natural rights. They are 
unalienable. For anyone to say: ``I am from the Federal Government, and 
I am here to help,'' well, those are very dangerous words.
  Another thing that is dangerous is gun-free zones. I am a cosponsor 
of Congressman Massie's bill that would remove the law that makes our 
schools gun-free zones. That makes them soft targets. Our children are 
our Nation's most valuable assets. The more value an asset has, the 
more protection it should have.
  We secure our banks. We secure our airports. We secure the White 
House. We have even seen the Capitol surrounded by fences, miles of 
razor wire on top of that fence, 26,000 armed National Guardsmen, 
because even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand 
that borders that are secure and armed security work.
  We need to harden our schools. We need to secure our schools. I 
believe this starts at a very local level. Maybe there is something 
there that can be boosted by the Federal Government, some of this 
unspent COVID money to go toward boosting security in our schools.
  We don't need to be inching away the rights and liberties of American 
citizens. Liberty lost never comes back. We don't get that liberty back 
that we give away. We certainly were not elected to legislate away 
liberty from our constituents. We are here to keep the American people 
free. That is the proper role of government.
  A lot of people would like to say that the Second Amendment, well, it 
is great because we know you want to hunt. The Second Amendment has 
nothing to do with hunting. Our Founding Fathers did not just return 
from a hunting expedition when they created the Bill of Rights, when 
they drafted that. No, they had just got done liberating a nation from 
a tyrannical, oppressive King, and they wanted a government that was so 
strong and powerful that it would be able to fight off that tyranny and 
oppression that anyone from around the world might seek to reimpose on 
this people. But they also wanted a government so limited that it would 
never impose that same tyranny and oppression on its own people.
  Isn't it interesting that we heard for weeks how American taxpayers 
need to send money to Ukraine to make sure that those citizens are 
armed?

                              {time}  1945

  Now the same people who are saying that we were bought by Putin 
because we didn't want to send billions and billions of dollars to 
Ukraine while our southern border is unsecure, while we have an 
invasion taking place at our southern border, when we have our own 
supply chain crisis, we have inflation that is skyrocketing, and we 
said maybe let's just put America first for a minute. But the same 
people who made these accusations against those of us who would vote 
against that spending are now seeking to take the rights away from 
American citizens.
  And these same people who had no problem arming Ukraine and wanting 
to disarm American citizens also call to defund the police. We even saw 
24 of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle just today vote 
to not provide added security to our Supreme Court Justices who have 
had mob violence at their homes, murder attempts against a Supreme 
Court Justice. And 24 of these radical leftists said: No, they are 
fine. We are not going to send police to protect you. You won't be able 
to protect yourself. It is all rogue.
  This is a lawless administration that we are serving under, and I 
would implore the Senate to not compromise on the American citizens' 
rights.
  And I would like to just note that the 10 that we have heard of who 
are considering siding with these people who would limit the liberties 
and freedoms of American citizens are either not coming back to the 
Senate, they are retiring, or they are not up for reelection. I think 
that that is very telling, and I will not give an inch on the Second 
Amendment, of the rights of the people to keep and bear arms to protect 
themselves, especially when cries from this Chamber are calling to 
defund law enforcement and our southern border is wide open, allowing 
the cartel to send whatever they want through those borders without any 
added security.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Rosendale for leading this special order 
tonight, and I make reference that it is the House Freedom Caucus that 
is really setting the standard and protecting American liberties.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear the Democrats talk 
about the flawed arguments that we make that the Founding Fathers 
didn't know weaponry would advance the way that it has, that the 
Founding Fathers could not conceive of a government that would never 
force us to do something against our will or deny us of due process. 
Please consider some of the activities that have taken place and the 
mandates that have been placed

[[Page H5540]]

upon us over the last 2 years, and don't tell me that we have a 
government that has reached well beyond its boundaries.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), who 
knows what it means to fight for our country.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I don't think there could be a more 
serious matter before this body. Everyone in the country, frankly, 
everyone in the world knows we can't continue to see what is happening 
in our cities, in our schools, in vulnerable communities, we can't 
continue to see those things happening.
  Sadly, Democrats have a preconceived play for every tragedy. A famous 
Democrat even coined the phrase, never let an emergency go to waste, 
never let a crisis go to waste.
  It is a crisis for sure. But the crisis isn't the fact that America 
has guns or that individual American citizens have guns. We have always 
had guns.
  What is different is the level of despair in our communities. We see 
it surging not just in mass shootings but in the rise of violent 
crimes, in the surge in suicides, in fatal overdoses. The leading cause 
of death for 18- to 45-year-olds is now fatal drug overdoses.
  A lot of people will point to the mass shooters as they are ready to 
lose their lives. They have even coined a phrase, suicide by cop. They 
know how it is going to end when they go in doing it.
  So what is driving this? Is it the gun? It is an inanimate object.
  The solution, the Democrats say--it is a longstanding wish list. They 
have had a dream for a long time to repeal the Second Amendment. 
Frankly, they don't want to campaign on that.
  Our colleague, Mr. Mondaire Jones from New York, when we were moving 
some of these bills through Judiciary Committee said, ``You will not 
stop us from passing gun control. If the filibuster obstructs us, we 
will abolish it. If the Supreme Court objects, we will expand. We will 
not rest until we have taken weapons of war out of our communities.'' 
Frankly, Justin Trudeau agrees, but he is the Prime Minister of Canada. 
Canada doesn't have a Second Amendment.
  Just today, I was walking through the Capitol from the Senate side to 
the House side, and a reporter stopped me, and she pointed out 
inaccurately that the Second Amendment grants us the right to keep and 
bear arms.
  No, ma'am, the Second Amendment does not grant us anything. In fact, 
the Bill of Rights grants us nothing. The Second Amendment is a 
limitation on the ability of government to infringe on our preexisting 
rights. Just as the Declaration recognized we were endowed by our 
creator with certain inalienable rights that among them are life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  This is an extension of the right to life. And, hopefully, tomorrow 
we will see the Supreme Court defend life. You can't defend freedom 
without defending life. In the modern era one of the key instruments to 
defending life for adults is the right to keep and bear arms.
  People have referred to some weapons as weapons of war. No, they are 
not the same weapons as weapons of war. Those were outlawed in the 
1930s under the National Firearms Act. They have been outlawed for a 
long time. A semiautomatic rifle or a semiautomatic pistol is not a 
weapon of war, though sometimes they are used in that mode in combat. 
They are very effective in war, but our Founding Fathers didn't vest 
the defense of this Nation originally in a standing Army. In fact, they 
said we don't want a standing Army.
  One of the limitations on this body is we have to fund the defense 
budget every cycle. We can't have it operate in perpetuity without 
reauthorizing it every time. We had a standing Navy, but we didn't have 
a standing Army.

  Let's read the text of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment 
says: ``A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a 
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be 
infringed.'' Famous words.
  People want to pretend that somehow the Second Amendment granted the 
State the ability to keep and bear arms. Only if you are in the 
military. Only if you are in the militia. That is the same right to 
keep and bear arms the North Korean Army has. What a fallacy. I can't 
believe some of our countrymen fall for that, but some of them do. And 
that is why my colleagues repeat it. They know, though, but they say 
the lie anyway.
  Well, what are we going to do about it? Well, we are certainly not 
going to surrender our freedoms because we know freedom surrendered is 
rarely reclaimed. We aim to keep our Second Amendment.
  Just as Ben Franklin--recognized walking out of the Constitutional 
Convention--was asked: What have you wrought, sir? A Republic if you 
can keep it. The people, and we aim to keep it as the people's 
Representatives.
  Who defends freedom in Congress? The Freedom Caucus. I am proud to be 
here with my colleagues taking this time tonight to defend this 
important freedom.
  But I think people are right to say, So what are we going to actually 
do about it?
  If you listen to the debate you might know that there are a lot of 
shooters that turn into active shooters, mass murderers, doers of evil 
deeds that people will say after the fact, well, you know, everybody 
kind of knew Johnny or whoever was crazy. You know, we kind of saw this 
coming. Maybe we could have stopped him. If only there was a red flag 
law.
  So people in America might not realize that in every single State and 
in the District of Columbia it is already possible to stop such a 
person. The law is known as the Baker Act. It is possible to have a 
person, even involuntarily, against their will, adjudicated mentally 
incompetent. That law preserves due process. The person has a right to 
confront his or her accusers. That law locks up the right thing. You 
can't deprive a person--under the Fifth Amendment and the 14th, you 
cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due 
process.
  Red flag laws reverse that. Not only do they get rid of the due 
process, it is essentially civil asset forfeiture. First, you seize the 
guns and you get to due process later. It seizes the wrong things. It 
locks up the guns.
  The person is the dangerous thing. So you take the guns away from the 
person. The person, if they really are mentally dangerous, they can get 
access to guns in other ways, perhaps illegally, as a substantial 
portion of shooters do. Perhaps they could drive a car through a parade 
route. They could use a blade. They could use all kinds of ways to harm 
others, and frankly, they could also harm themselves, turning into one 
of the tragic suicides that occur every day in our country.
  So, no, I think the Baker Act ought to be the thing that people focus 
on. Those are overwhelmingly State laws. And we have to focus on 
understanding why those laws aren't used.
  My colleagues know of these laws, particularly the ones on the 
Judiciary Committee, but they don't bring them up. They pretend as if 
the only way to stop this is with the red flag laws. And you know, 
while I know the Democrats have had a longstanding desire to go after 
the Second Amendment, I will admit it is especially discouraging when 
Republicans break ranks on this core issue.
  I was disappointed to see 10 of our House colleagues vote for some 
measure of gun control in the House. Five of them aren't running again, 
and five of them may find that they are not running again at some 
point. In the Senate there are already 10 that are openly supportive of 
this outline, framework of a deal. We haven't seen text, but we do know 
it encourages red flag laws, which ought to be ruled unconstitutional, 
as all civil asset forfeiture ought to be ruled unconstitutional.
  When you look at civil asset forfeiture, it is disproportionately 
used in minority and disadvantaged communities.
  Why? How? Because they don't have the money to get the assets back. 
The government seizes it. It spins due process on its head, and you 
have to go to court to prove the property is yours or that you are able 
to own it safely.
  And when you talk about a gun, while guns aren't always cheap, 
lawyers are more expensive. So most people will simply buy another gun, 
rather than go back and fight the unjust action in courts. It is so 
ripe for abuse. It is horrible to see anyone who has sworn an oath to 
support and defend our Constitution support such measures. I hope 
people will pull back and rethink it; not rethink solving the problem.

[[Page H5541]]

  Let's look at the Baker Act, and let's look at mental health. Let's 
look at these acts of despair that are wrecking our communities and 
individual lives, and let's stop falling for the fallacies that somehow 
gun control is going to end the actions of these doers of evil deeds.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for hosting this special order.
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here with the members 
of the Freedom Caucus tonight because they are the ones that understand 
we are standing here with a simple task, and that is to defend the 
rights of the people across this Nation. That is what our job is.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice), my 
good friend.
  Mr. HICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Montana 
for your leadership on this issue and for all the members of the House 
Freedom Caucus who stand for the issues that are both constitutional 
and extremely important to the American citizens.
  All of us, all of us, all of us have been shocked over and over to 
see the unspeakable acts of violence, mass shootings and the like that 
have taken place in recent years and are rising in intensity and 
frequency. We see the heart-wrenching situations that these tragedies 
create in families and communities, and we see the rippling effect that 
they have in our Nation as a whole.
  But far too often when these types of things happen, the reaction has 
become predictable from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
from the media, from others who immediately jump to conclusions, 
politicize the tragedies, and transfer to an agenda that includes 
disarming law-abiding citizens and stripping away our constitutionally 
protected Second Amendment.

                              {time}  2000

  Stricter regulation is not the issue--it is not the answer. Stripping 
away constitutional rights of American citizens is not the answer to 
these problems.
  When considering how to deal with issues like mass shootings, we need 
to dig down to the root cause. This is just common sense. We have a 
major problem, let's get to the cause of the problem.
  Firearms are just a tool, and like with any tool, the tool is only as 
effective or ineffective as the one operating the tool. I am not a 
violent person, that is why I don't have violent guns. The guns are not 
the problem. The person is the problem.
  If you have a violent person--as has already been stated tonight--a 
violent person is going to commit violent acts. What is our response 
here--let's not go after the person, let's not deal with the cause, 
let's go after the tool, the instrument that was used. That does not 
solve the problem.
  If we are ever going to deal with issues like mass shootings, and a 
host of other issues of that nature, then we have got to look at the 
problem, which is the shooter. We, in this country right now, we are a 
Nation in deep moral and spiritual crisis.
  Among other things, we are watching our values in the family unit 
deteriorate right under our nose. Just today in a hearing in the 
Oversight Committee where the Democrats were yet again offering one 
piece of legislation after another that continues to deteriorate and 
dismantle the most critical unit in this country--that is the family 
unit.
  Mr. Speaker, I would challenge anyone to take a deeper look at those 
who have committed such violent, heinous crimes that we have watched 
and see what their family life was like, what their spiritual life was 
like, and we will start finding some of the issues here that must be 
addressed.
  Yet, we have so many attempts right now to address all the wrong 
things.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                          ____________________