[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9101-9102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, last Saturday's New York Times revealed 
that since the expiration of the Federal ban on assault weapons there 
have been no real boom in sales of the weapons at American gun stores. 
Opponents of the ban seized the opportunity to say the ban was 
ineffective. However, I think these statistics prove that assault 
weapons have absolutely no practical purpose except to kill human 
beings.
  Many Members of the House have told me the assault weapons ban is an 
affront on our second amendment rights, but the public never saw the 
assault weapons ban as an infringement on their second amendment 
rights. Last September, a Dallas newspaper ran a poll indicating that 
78 percent of Texas gun owners supported keeping the ban in place. And 
nobody takes their second amendment rights more

[[Page 9102]]

seriously than Texas gun owners. So nobody should be surprised that the 
sales of these weapons are so low.
  However, some people are buying these weapons. They may intend to use 
these guns in crimes; and because of our pre-9/11 gun laws, these 
people could possibly be aligned with our enemies in the war on terror. 
It is time for this Congress to finally be proactive when it comes to 
gun safety and gun laws. We cannot wait for another Columbine before we 
address how easy it is for criminals and terrorists to legally purchase 
these hand-held weapons of mass destruction.
  We need commonsense gun laws that allow law-abiding citizens to 
purchase guns for sport and self-defense, but ensure that those 
criminals with felonies and terrorist backgrounds cannot arm 
themselves. We need a new stronger assault weapons ban.
  One of the things that I certainly will be working for is the large-
capacity clips.

                              {time}  1915

  There are many that will say, Well, it doesn't matter how many clips 
you have. But if you see what these clips can do, especially against 
our police officers, it is something that we should not allow, 
certainly in this country. The only ones that should be allowed to own 
them are our police officers and certainly our military.
  Resourceful criminals still found a way to obtain illegal weapons. 
However, the ban made these weapons more expensive. And because they 
became more expensive, we saw that gangs were not buying these guns. I 
think that is one of the reasons why it worked.
  Tomorrow we are going to be voting on an anti-gang bill. We see our 
police officers on the front line against these gangs all the time. 
During the 10 years that the ban was in place, crimes involving banned 
weapons dropped by 60 percent, so we do know that it was working. 
Nearly every police organization in this country supported the assault 
weapons ban and wants to make sure that we try and get it in place 
again. When the men and women on the front lines in the war on gangs 
and crime in this country say they want assault weapons banned, we 
should listen.
  This week we are celebrating or mourning those police officers that 
were killed in this last past year. Every year it seems that the 
numbers are growing. We should be doing more to protect our police 
officers that try to protect us on a daily basis. However, we need to 
improve on the shortfalls of the old ban, namely, magazines as I have 
mentioned that hold more than 10 rounds.
  Personally, I remember going back to 1993 when there was a shooting 
on the Long Island Railroad and my husband was one of those killed. The 
person that was doing the shooting had clips of 15 and more bullets. 
Every one of those bullets made its mark, killing a number of people 
and injuring many, my husband dying and my son certainly being injured. 
If we had a clip that was only 10, 15 people might not have been 
injured or killed. I think that is important.
  The only Americans who should be allowed to have these weapons are 
soldiers and police officers, as I have said. Using one of these 
weapons with these clips in your home would certainly take down an 
intruder, but the bullets are flying. Come on, let us use some common 
sense. They would be flying all over the place. You could be hitting 
your neighbor. Why do we need clips that are more than 10? As I said, 
our police officers should have them, but it will probably be when we 
see these gangs buying the large capacity clips, that is when we will 
have outrage here.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop listening to the NRA's rhetoric and 
start listening to common sense. We should be working together. The 
whole idea is to make sure that people are safe. No legislation that 
anyone is trying to do that I am aware of is taking away the right of 
someone to own a gun. We certainly should make it harder for those 
criminals, those terrorists that are out there at gun shows buying 
guns, criminals and gangs buying guns illegally. We can do a better 
job.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope in the next several weeks that we will see 
legislation come down. I certainly will work on it.

                          ____________________