[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 17318-17330]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 822, NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY 
                        RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2011

  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 463 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 463

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 822) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
     provide a national standard in accordance with which 
     nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the 
     State. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Florida is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. NUGENT. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUGENT. I rise today in support of House Resolution 463, a rule 
which provides for the consideration of an important piece of 
legislation, H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 
2011.
  I am proud to sponsor this rule, which provides for a structured 
amendment process that will allow Members

[[Page 17319]]

to have a thorough debate on a wide variety of relevant and germane 
amendments to H.R. 822. We have allowed 10 amendments to this bill--two 
Republican amendments and eight Democratic amendments. Even on a 
contentious bill, a bill where it would be easy to shut down the 
process, we not only are allowing amendments, but of those that we will 
be debating on the floor, the vast majority are Democratic amendments.
  We did this not because it was the easy thing to do; we did it 
because it was the right thing to do. It brought transparency to the 
debate, and it is in keeping with the promises that the Republican 
Party made to the American people for a freer, more open process.
  Madam Speaker, until coming to this body 10 months ago, I had spent 
my entire career as a cop, the last 10 years as sheriff of Hernando 
County, Florida. During my 38 years in law enforcement, I found that 
disarming honest citizens does nothing to reduce crime. If anything, 
all it does is keep law-abiding citizens from being able to defend 
themselves from violent criminals. Although I know this just from my 
anecdotal experience, research backs up the claim.
  For example, statistics indicate that citizens with carry permits are 
more law-abiding than the general public. In my home State of Florida, 
only 0.01 percent of nearly 1.2 million permits have been revoked 
because of firearm crimes committed by permit holders. Additionally, 
evidence indicates that crime declines in States with right-to-carry 
laws. Since Florida became a right-to-carry State in 1987, Florida's 
total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32 percent and 58 
percent, respectively.
  Because of this evidence, as well as my firsthand experience, I am a 
proud defender of our Second Amendment right: ensuring ``the right of 
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' My history 
as a law enforcement officer is also why I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 
822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.
  H.R. 822 is a good, bipartisan bill, which enhances the 
constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. Today, if I drive from 
my home State of Florida into Georgia, Georgia recognizes that my 
Florida driver's license is still valid even once I cross the State 
line. H.R. 822 would require States to recognize each other's legally 
issued concealed carry permits in the same way. This legislation would 
take a comprehensive approach to helping law-abiding citizens navigate 
the patchwork of State concealed carry laws.
  H.R. 822 does not--let me repeat--does not create a national 
concealed carry permit system nor does it establish any nationalized 
standard for a carry permit. H.R. 822 respects the States' abilities to 
create their own gun usage laws as well as their own permitting 
processes.
  I am sure that we will hear arguments from my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle saying that H.R. 822 somehow makes it easier for 
people to get a gun. Let me assure you that, again, this is not the 
case. This legislation does not mandate that anyone suddenly be given a 
gun nor does it relax any of a State's current permitting laws.

                              {time}  1240

  During my nearly 40 years as a cop, I learned you just can't talk 
about guns. When you're talking about gun crime, you need to look at 
two distinct classes of guns: there are legal guns, and there are 
illegal guns. I can tell you, as a cop, you don't worry about the legal 
guns, the guns that people bought from an authorized source, that they 
registered with the proper authorities, that they took the necessary 
classes to learn how to use responsibly, and that they got their legal 
concealed carry permit. In my experience, you worry about the illegal 
guns, guns that somebody purposefully bought off the radar, either 
because they aren't legally allowed to own a gun or because they're 
going to use them for illegal purposes.
  H.R. 822 doesn't get into that difference. What it does is ensures 
that legal gun owners don't accidentally break a law simply because 
they brought their fully permitted gun into another State. This 
legislation gives peace of mind to Americans traveling across State 
lines with a legally registered, concealed firearm, knowing that they 
can practice their constitutional right to bear arms.
  Again, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 822 and support its 
passage.
  With that, I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, 
``yes'' on the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, first of all, let me rise in opposition to this 
restrictive rule, yet another restrictive rule. A lot of good 
amendments were not made in order, and Members do not have the right to 
offer amendments as they see fit during this debate. So I would urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule for that reason.
  Madam Speaker, another week and another hot button social issue is 
being brought to the floor by this extreme Republican leadership. A few 
weeks ago, this House debated an abortion bill. That's months after we 
considered legislation to defund Planned Parenthood. This Republican 
leadership has tried to overturn the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water 
Act this year, simply because their corporate constituency demands it. 
And now we're turning to guns.
  We're about to debate legislation that makes it easier to carry 
concealed weapons in the United States. In fact, we're considering a 
bill that will make it easier for convicted felons. Yet what do 
Americans want most of all right now? Are they screaming for a lengthy 
debate on abortion issues? Do they want us debating whether or not we 
need to reaffirm our national motto? Are they clamoring for more 
lenient gun laws?
  No, Madam Speaker. The American people want jobs, J-O-B-S, jobs. But 
my Republican friends are either too stubborn to listen or just don't 
care enough to do something about the problem. Maybe they are just 
covering their eyes and plugging their ears, hoping that this crisis 
will magically disappear. That may work for a 6-year-old who's scared 
of ghosts, but that's not how you govern a country.
  Our unemployment rate is 9 percent. There are just under 14 million 
unemployed Americans; millions more are earning less now than they were 
before the economic crisis simply because they were forced with the 
choice to take a lower-paying job or face unemployment. And what's the 
Republican response to this problem? Not a jobs bill. In fact, the 
Republicans haven't brought up a jobs bill once in this Congress. So 
what, then, is their response to the jobs product? Surprise, surprise; 
it's a gun bill.
  Madam Speaker, what are we doing here? This is nuts. This isn't what 
the American people sent us here to do. The irony is, many of the new 
Republicans were allegedly sent here because of their opposition to 
Federal encroachment on States' rights, but here we are debating a bill 
that imposes the Federal role on States and undermines States' laws.
  This is crazy in normal times, Madam Speaker. It's even crazier 
today. And unlike the resolution reaffirming our national motto that we 
debated a few weeks ago, this legislation will have real impacts on 
people's lives. Madam Speaker, people will be hurt because of this 
legislation. People, in fact, may die because of this bill. Don't take 
my word for it; look at the facts. The bill obliterates State and local 
eligibility rules for concealed weapons. It eliminates the State's 
discretion to honor another State's permits. It requires States with 
responsible restrictions--like my home State of Massachusetts--to allow 
people with permits from States with lax laws to bring concealed 
weapons into those States. Simply, it allows a person to bring a hidden 
loaded gun into a State where, under today's laws, they are currently 
ineligible to carry a concealed weapon.

[[Page 17320]]

  Now there are reasons that States don't allow certain people to carry 
concealed weapons, and each State is different. My home State of 
Massachusetts doesn't issue concealed weapons permits to people who 
have specific dangerous misdemeanor criminal convictions or alcohol 
abuse problems, as well as people who have not completed firearm safety 
training, people who do not have a good character, or those who are 
under the age of 21.
  I would like to insert into the Record a letter from the 
Massachusetts Secretary of Public Safety and Security in opposition to 
this bill.
  But under this bill, a person who is convicted of spousal abuse in 
one State could go to a second State for a concealed weapon permit. 
When they get that permit, this bill allows that felon to bring their 
weapon into Massachusetts even though they would not be eligible for a 
concealed weapon permit under Massachusetts laws.
  Now my friends on the other side of the aisle will say that this bill 
is necessary, that more guns mean less crime, that people need to be 
able to protect themselves. Well, that's not how our Nation's mayors 
see it. Mayors Against Illegal Guns strongly oppose this bill because 
it makes our cities less--not more--less safe. Mayors Against Illegal 
Guns, founded by Boston Mayor Tom Menino and New York City Mayor 
Michael Bloomberg, is made up of over 600 mayors of all political 
stripes, united to respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners while 
keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people. 
And I'm especially grateful for the national leadership of Mayor Tom 
Menino, who has long been a champion on this issue.
  Not only do more than 600 mayors in this coalition oppose this bill, 
but so do the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major 
Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Foundation, the National Latino 
Peace Officers Association, and the National Organization of Black Law 
Enforcement Executives. In fact, not only does the American Bar 
Association oppose this bill, but so does the Association of 
Prosecuting Attorneys.
  I would like to insert into the Record the statement by the Mayors 
Against Illegal Guns in opposition to H.R. 822.
  Madam Speaker, Massachusetts is fortunate to have a number of anti-
gun violence leaders in the Commonwealth. In addition to Mayor Menino, 
we are home to Stop Handgun Violence and, specifically, its founder 
John Rosenthal. Gun safety laws work. They keep our citizens safe. In 
fact, Massachusetts has the most comprehensive and effective gun 
violence prevention laws and initiatives and the lowest firearm 
fatality rate per 100,000 population of any urban industrial State and 
second lowest overall behind Hawaii.
  Every day more than 150 Americans are shot, and 83 die from gun 
violence in the United States. A child under 20 years old dies from gun 
violence every 3 hours, eight kids every single day. We could fill 
Fenway Park three times over with the 110,000 kids under 20 years old 
killed by guns in the past 30 years, and there is still no national law 
requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales in the U.S. In 
fact, in 33 States, there is no background check requirement or even 
proof of ID for private gun sales. And today we're going to make it 
even easier for these people to carry concealed weapons.
  Massachusetts is the leader in gun violence prevention. We should be 
working to prevent gun violence, not encouraging it with legislation 
like this. Madam Speaker, Federal preemption of Massachusetts law will 
only result in more innocent and largely preventible gun deaths in my 
home State. The same holds true for nearly every State of the Union. In 
fact, preempting State gun laws will make this entire country less 
safe, and I cannot and I will not support legislation that makes our 
neighborhoods and our cities and our States less safe.
  Madam Speaker, let me conclude by saying, if we want to combat crime, 
if we want to make our neighborhoods safer, I would urge my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle to join with us and bring the 
President's jobs bill to the floor. Let's provide people with jobs and 
economic security. Let's revitalize our neighborhoods that are 
struggling now in poverty. That's what we should be doing, not debating 
a bill to make it easier to carry concealed weapons. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on final passage 
of the bill.

         The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of 
           Public Safety and Security,
                                    Boston, MA, November 10, 2011.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Boehner, and 
     Minority Leader Pelosi: I write to express my strong 
     opposition to H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry 
     Reciprocity Act, legislation that would force Massachusetts 
     to recognize concealed carry permits granted by other states, 
     even when those permit holders could not meet standards 
     required by Massachusetts law.
       To protect vulnerable people, many states have set 
     standards for carrying handguns that include criteria beyond 
     an applicant's ability to pass a federal background check. 
     Right now, Massachusetts does not issue concealed carry 
     permits to people who have certain dangerous misdemeanor 
     criminal convictions or alcohol abuse problems, as well as 
     individuals who have not completed firearms safety training, 
     who do not have good character, or who are under the age of 
     21. H.R. 822, however, would permit citizens of states with 
     less strict laws to freely carry concealed weapons in our 
     state.
       Varying state standards make it very difficult to know if a 
     carry permit from another state is valid. If a police officer 
     is unsure about whether a person is carrying a gun legally or 
     illegally, especially during a traffic stop, it may result in 
     a situation which could escalate dangerously.
       National concealed carry reciprocity is opposed by more 
     than 600 mayors, including the mayors of Boston, Cambridge, 
     Springfield, and Worcester; local law enforcement, including 
     the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and the 
     Commissioner of the Boston Police Department; seven state 
     attorneys general, including Martha Coakley, Attorney General 
     of Massachusetts; the International Association of Chiefs of 
     Police; the Major Cities Chiefs Association, representing the 
     police chiefs of 56 major U.S. cities; the National Black 
     Police Association; the National Latino Peace Officers 
     Association; and the National Organization of Black Law 
     Enforcement Executives.
       I urge you to support Massachusetts' law enforcement 
     officials and the Commonwealth's right to make its own 
     decisions about how to protect public safety.
           Sincerely,
                                         Mary Elizabeth Heffernan,
                                                        Secretary.
                                               Marian J. McGovern,
     Colonel, Massachusetts State Police.
                                  ____


                      Mayors Against Illegal Guns


``NATIONAL RIGHT-TO-CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2011,'' SPONSORED BY REP. 
                           STEARNS (H.R. 822)

       Bottom line: This bill would override the laws of almost 
     every state by forcing each to accept concealed handgun carry 
     permits from every other state, even if the permit holder 
     would not be allowed to carry or even possess a handgun in 
     the state where he or she is traveling. That policy would 
     undercut states' rights and create serious problems for law 
     enforcement. For those reasons, more than 600 mayors, major 
     national and local police organizations, and domestic 
     violence prevention organizations oppose national concealed 
     carry reciprocity and Congress rejected similar legislation 
     in 2009.
       States Decide Criteria for Concealed Carry Permits Based on 
     Their Public Safety Needs: Almost all states issue licenses 
     to carry concealed firearms, but the criteria for such 
     permits differ widely, and each state makes its own decision 
     about whether to accept other states' permits based on their 
     respective public safety needs.
       Licenses issued: 44 states require permits to carry 
     concealed handguns.
       Illinois and Wisconsin do not allow concealed carrying.
       Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming allow concealed 
     carrying without a permit.
       Criteria Vary Based on Public Safety Needs: Each state with 
     permitting has its own eligibility standards. Those criteria 
     include:
       Dangerous misdemeanants: At least 38 states, including 
     Indiana and Pennsylvania, prevent people from carrying 
     concealed weapons if they have certain dangerous misdemeanor 
     criminal convictions beyond domestic violence misdemeanors, 
     which prohibit gun possession under federal law.
       Safety training: At least 35 states, including Nevada, 
     require the completion of a gun

[[Page 17321]]

     safety program, many of which include live fire training, or 
     other proof of competency prior to the issuance of a carry 
     permit.
       Age restrictions: At least 36 states, including Colorado 
     and Missouri, prohibit individuals under the age of 21 from 
     obtaining concealed carry permits.
       Law enforcement discretion: At least 24 states, including 
     Alabama, give permits based on law enforcement discretion.
       Alcohol abuse: At least 29 states, including New Mexico and 
     South Carolina, prohibit alcohol abusers from obtaining a 
     concealed carry permit.
       Good character: At least 14 states, including Maine, 
     require applicants to demonstrate good character to obtain a 
     concealed carry permit.
       Good cause requirement: At least 12 states, including North 
     Dakota, require applicants to demonstrate that he or she has 
     ``good cause'' for obtaining a concealed carry permit.
       Short permit renewal period: At least 36 states, including 
     Arkansas, require permit holders to renew their permit at 
     least every five years.
       Residents: At least 27 states require applicants to be 
     residents of the state or have some other close tie to the 
     state.
       States Decide Whether to Offer Reciprocity: Each state has 
     its own laws on what other states' permits to accept, if any.
       30 states recognize permits only from selected states--
     typically from states with equivalent or higher standards; 
     and
       9 states do not recognize any out-of-state permits.
       Of the other 11 states, 7 states allow carrying by all out-
     of-state permit holders, 3 states allow carrying by non-
     residents without a permit, and Illinois does not currently 
     allow any form of concealed carrying.
       What Would H.R. 822 Do? H.R. 822 would require each state 
     to accept concealed carry permits from every other state, 
     usurping each state's right to set its own public safety 
     laws. Those eligible include anyone who holds a concealed 
     carry permit issued by any state and except for those barred 
     under federal law.
       Narrow exceptions to reciprocity:
       A person cannot obtain a permit from a state that grants 
     permits to non-residents and then use that permit to carry in 
     their own state of residence. However, under H.R. 822, a 
     person can obtain a non-resident permit and use it to carry 
     in 47 other states.
       They must carry a government-issued photo ID and their 
     state license.
       How Would H.R. 822 Endanger Law Enforcement?
       Threatens Safety of Police Officers: H.R. 822 would create 
     serious and potentially life threatening situations for law 
     enforcement officers.
       For example, during traffic stops, it will be nearly 
     impossible for law enforcement officers to verify the 
     validity of 48 different carry permits--forcing officers to 
     make split-second decisions for their own safety in an 
     already dangerous situation.
       H.R. 822 would also enable criminal traffickers to travel 
     to out of state gun markets with loaded handguns in the glove 
     compartment, exposing police to unnecessary danger.
       Weakens Law Enforcement's Ability to Detect Criminals:
       Inability to prevent gun trafficking: Gun traffickers who 
     have concealed carry permits would be able to bring cars or 
     backpacks full of guns into destination states and present 
     their permit if stopped. As a practical matter, to arrest the 
     traffickers, police would have to observe them in the act of 
     selling guns.
       Inability to determine if individuals are in compliance 
     with laws of other states: Officers would have to distinguish 
     between real and fake carry permits issued not only by their 
     own state, but by every state. And in many cases, officers 
     would have to determine whether a person is entitled to carry 
     a gun, which would depend on their state of residence and is 
     nearly impossible to verify quickly.
       Legislative History: In 2009, the Senate defeated the Thune 
     Amendment, a similar legislative proposal to preempt state 
     concealed carry laws.
       Who Opposes National Concealed Carry Reciprocity?
       Mayors: Over 600 members of the bipartisan coalition of 
     Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
       Law Enforcement: Major national law enforcement 
     organizations, including: International Association of Chiefs 
     of Police; Major Cities Chiefs Association, which includes 
     the Police Chiefs of 56 major U.S. cities; the Police 
     Foundation, National Latino Peace Officers Association; 
     National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.
       State and Local Law Enforcement Organizations: Alabama 
     Association of Chiefs of Police, California Police Chiefs 
     Association, Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, 
     Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, Massachusetts Police 
     Chiefs Association, Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, 
     Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, and Wisconsin 
     Association of Chiefs of Police.
       Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.
       American Bar Association.
       National Network to End Domestic Violence--a coalition of 
     56 domestic violence victim advocacy organizations.
       Faiths United--a coalition of over 30 national religious 
     groups.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle talks about a jobs bill. We're not talking about it right now. 
But if you look at this card, we have over 20 jobs bills that have 
passed out of this body that are sitting in the Senate today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the 
Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This is a serious piece of work for me today because less than a year 
ago, one of our colleagues from Arizona was shot in the head while she 
was trying to convene with her constituents outside a supermarket. The 
mayhem was awful. A little 9-year-old girl named Christina-Taylor 
Green, a baseball fan who just came to see her Congresswoman, was 
killed. And by all accounts, an extraordinary Federal judge named John 
Roll died as well as some of Gabby's staff. Numbers of people were 
wounded. And yet the only person ever considered by this House would be 
the guy and his right to have that gun. What about the rights for the 
rest of us? Are we going to have to learn to dance up and down the 
street to try to escape the bullets? What happens to us? What about an 
amendment for us to ensure that we can be safe?
  The statistics of people now being killed in places of worship, the 
rising number of people in law enforcement who face unspeakable and 
awful things because we won't do our job here to disarm people who are 
mentally ill.
  I would like to insert into the Record an article from the New York 
Times on how easy it is for felons, including the mentally ill, to 
regain their gun rights.

                              {time}  1250

  When are we going to reinstate in this House the automatic weapons 
ban, and why don't we outlaw guns that are so powerful that they serve 
no purpose at all in a civilized society? When will we allow the 
Federal authorities to computerize gun sale records so it is easier to 
hold guilty individuals responsible for their gun crimes?
  In the age of iPhones and Androids, our police are tracing gun crimes 
with scraps of paper and handwritten notes. Surely that is a more 
important job for us to do here than what we're doing--to say you can 
carry a concealed weapon anywhere you want to go because that's who we 
are. Apparently, the Republican majority wants that.
  Based on today's bill, they think it is more important to pass 
legislation that will make it easier to carry a gun to a public 
gathering, easier to carry a loaded weapon into NFL stadiums, easier to 
carry a gun to the grocery store on Saturday noon, or into your temple 
or your church. What in the world? How can we ever explain that to 
people who have had gun deaths in their family?
  The horrible shooting of our colleague wouldn't have been stopped 
with the passage of today's bill, and no one is made safer by allowing 
guns into public space. And since last January, Congress hasn't 
considered a single piece of legislation that would make it harder for 
a mentally ill individual to get a gun. We have done nothing at all to 
make sure that another nightmare like the one in Tucson doesn't visit 
our country yet again, leaving innocent children, men, and women 
victims to a loaded gun. And yet the only person we care about here is 
the gun owner.
  The only legislation we are considering will make it more convenient 
to carry your gun even in States that don't want it. Realizing this 
fact really puts the morality of this agenda into perspective.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. This Congress should be considering legislation that 
will help the American people, not legislation that fulfills an 
ideological

[[Page 17322]]

agenda, which is what we've been doing all year. I urge my colleagues 
to vigorously oppose today's legislation.

                [From the New York Times, Nov. 13, 2011]

              Felons Finding It Easy to Regain Gun Rights

                            (By Michael Luo)

       In February 2005, Erik Zettergren came home from a party 
     after midnight with his girlfriend and another couple. They 
     had all been drinking heavily, and soon the other man and Mr. 
     Zettergren's girlfriend passed out on his bed. When Mr. 
     Zettergren went to check on them later, he found his 
     girlfriend naked from the waist down and the other man, Jason 
     Robinson, with his pants around his ankles.
       Enraged, Mr. Zettergren ordered Mr. Robinson to leave. 
     After a brief confrontation, Mr. Zettergren shot him in the 
     temple at point-blank range with a Glock-17 semiautomatic 
     handgun. He then forced Mr. Robinson's hysterical fiancee, at 
     gunpoint, to help him dispose of the body in a nearby river.
       It was the first homicide in more than 30 years in the 
     small town of Endicott, in eastern Washington. But for a 
     judge's ruling two months before, it would probably never 
     have happened.
       For years, Mr. Zettergren had been barred from possessing 
     firearms because of two felony convictions. He had a history 
     of mental health problems and friends said he was dangerous. 
     Yet Mr. Zettergren's gun rights were restored without even a 
     hearing, under a state law that gave the judge no leeway to 
     deny the application as long as certain basic requirements 
     had been met. Mr. Zettergren, then 36, wasted no time 
     retrieving several guns he had given to a friend for 
     safekeeping.
       ``If he hadn't had his rights restored, in this particular 
     instance, it probably would have saved the life of the other 
     person,'' said Denis Tracy, the prosecutor in Whitman County, 
     who handled the murder case.
       Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit 
     their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons 
     across the country have those rights reinstated, often with 
     little or no review. In several states, they include people 
     convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder 
     and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has 
     found.
       While previously a small number of felons were able to 
     reclaim their gun rights, the process became commonplace in 
     many states in the late 1980s, after Congress started 
     allowing state laws to dictate these reinstatements--part of 
     an overhaul of federal gun laws orchestrated by the National 
     Rifle Association. The restoration movement has gathered 
     force in recent years, as gun rights advocates have sought to 
     capitalize on the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second 
     Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms.
       This gradual pulling back of what many Americans have 
     unquestioningly assumed was a blanket prohibition has drawn 
     relatively little public notice. Indeed, state law 
     enforcement agencies have scant information, if any, on which 
     felons are getting their gun rights back, let alone how many 
     have gone on to commit new crimes.
       While many states continue to make it very difficult for 
     felons to get their gun rights back--and federal felons are 
     out of luck without a presidential pardon--many other 
     jurisdictions are far more lenient, The Times found. In some, 
     restoration is automatic for nonviolent felons as soon as 
     they complete their sentences. In others, the decision is 
     left up to judges, but the standards are generally vague, the 
     process often perfunctory. In some states, even violent 
     felons face a relatively low bar, with no waiting period 
     before they can apply.
       The Times examined hundreds of restoration cases in several 
     states, among them Minnesota, where William James Holisky II, 
     who had a history of stalking and terrorizing women, got his 
     gun rights back last year, just six months after completing a 
     three-year prison sentence for firing a shotgun into the 
     house of a woman who had broken up with him after a handful 
     of dates. She and her son were inside at the time of the 
     shooting.
       ``My whole family's convinced that at some point he'll blow 
     a gasket and that he'll come and shoot someone,'' said Vicky 
     Holisky-Crets, Mr. Holisky's sister.
       Also last year, a judge in Cleveland restored gun rights to 
     Charles C. Hairston, who had been convicted of first-degree 
     murder in North Carolina in 1971 for shooting a grocery store 
     owner in the head with a shotgun. He also had another felony 
     conviction, in 1995, for corruption of a minor.
       Margaret C. Love, a pardon lawyer based in Washington, 
     D.C., who has researched gun rights restoration laws, 
     estimated that, depending on the type of crime, in more than 
     half the states felons have a reasonable chance of getting 
     back their gun rights.
       That universe could well expand, as pro-gun groups shed a 
     historical reluctance to advocate publicly for gun rights for 
     felons. Lawyers litigating Second Amendment issues are also 
     starting to challenge the more restrictive restoration laws. 
     Pro-gun groups have pressed the issue in the last few years 
     in states as diverse as Alaska, Ohio, Oregon and Tennessee.
       Ohio's Legislature confronted the matter when it passed a 
     law this year fixing a technicality that threatened to 
     invalidate the state's restorations.
       Ken Hanson, legislative chairman of the Buckeye Firearms 
     Coalition, argued that felons should be able to reclaim their 
     gun rights just as they can other civil rights.
       ``If it's a constitutional right, you treat it with equal 
     dignity with other rights,'' he said.
       But Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition 
     Against Gun Violence, contended that the public was safer 
     without guns in the hands of people who have committed 
     serious crimes.
       ``It seems that Ohio legislators have plenty of problems to 
     solve that should be a much higher priority than making sure 
     criminals have guns,'' Ms. Hoover said in written testimony.
       That question--whether the restorations pose a risk to 
     public safety--has received little study, in part because 
     data can be hard to come by.
       The Times analyzed data from Washington State, where Mr. 
     Zettergren had his gun rights restored. The most serious 
     felons are barred, but otherwise judges have no discretion to 
     reject the petitions, as long as the applicant fulfills 
     certain criteria. (In 2003, a state appeals court panel 
     stated that a petitioner ``had no burden to show that he is 
     safe to own or possess guns.'')
       Since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of 
     domestic violence misdemeanors have regained their gun rights 
     in the state--430 in 2010 alone--according to the analysis of 
     data provided by the state police and the court system. Of 
     that number, more than 400--about 13 percent--have 
     subsequently committed new crimes, the analysis found. More 
     than 200 committed felonies, including murder, assault in the 
     first and second degree, child rape and drive-by shooting.
       Even some felons who have regained their firearms rights 
     say the process needs to be more rigorous.
       ``It's kind of spooky, isn't it?'' said Beau Krueger, who 
     has two assaults on his record and got his gun rights back 
     last year in Minnesota after only a brief hearing, in which 
     local prosecutors did not even participate. ``We could have 
     all kinds of crazy hoodlums out here with guns that shouldn't 
     have guns.''


                        powerful lobby prevails

       The federal firearms prohibition for felons dates to the 
     late 1960s, when the assassinations of the Rev. Dr. Martin 
     Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, along with 
     rioting across the country, set off a clamor for stricter gun 
     control laws. Congress enacted sweeping legislation that 
     included a provision extending the firearms ban for convicted 
     criminals beyond those who had committed ``crimes of 
     violence,'' a standard adopted in the 1930s.
       ``All of our people who are deeply concerned about law and 
     order should hail this day,'' President Lyndon B. Johnson 
     said upon signing the Gun Control Act in October 1968.
       Even the N.R.A. backed the bill. But by the late 1970s, a 
     more hard-line faction, committed to an expansive view of the 
     Second Amendment, had taken control of the group. A crowning 
     achievement was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, 
     which significantly loosened federal gun laws.
       When it came to felons' gun rights, the legislation 
     essentially left the matter up to states. The federal gun 
     restrictions would no longer apply if a state had restored a 
     felon's civil rights--to vote, sit on a jury and hold public 
     office--and the individual faced no other firearms 
     prohibitions.
       The restoration issue drew relatively little notice in the 
     Congressional battle over the bill. But officials of the 
     federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms identified 
     the provision in an internal memo as among their serious 
     concerns. Some state law enforcement officials also sounded 
     the alarm.
       When Senator David F. Durenberger, a Minnesota Republican, 
     realized after the law passed that thousands of felons, 
     including those convicted of violent crimes, in his state 
     would suddenly be getting their gun rights back, he sought 
     the N.R.A.'s help in rolling back the provision. Doug Kelley, 
     his chief of staff at the time, thought the group would 
     ``surely want to close this loophole.''
       But the senator, Mr. Kelley recalled, ``ran into a stone 
     wall,'' as the N.R.A. threatened to pull its support for him 
     if he did not drop the matter, which he eventually did.
       ``The N.R.A. slammed the door on us,'' Mr. Kelley said. 
     ``That absolutely baffled me.''
       Until then, the avenues for restoration had been narrow and 
     few: a direct appeal to the federal firearms agency, which 
     conducted detailed background investigations; a state pardon 
     expressly authorizing gun possession, or a presidential 
     pardon. Felons convicted of crimes involving guns or other 
     weapons, as well as those convicted of violating federal gun 
     laws, were expressly barred from applying to the federal 
     firearms agency.
       By contrast, the restoration of civil rights, which is now 
     central to regaining gun rights, is relatively routine, 
     automatic in many states upon completion of a sentence. In 
     some states, felons must also petition for a judicial order 
     specifically restoring firearms rights. Other potential paths 
     include a pardon from the governor or state clemency

[[Page 17323]]

     board or a ``set aside''--essentially, an annulment--of the 
     conviction.
       Today, in at least 11 states, including Kansas, Ohio, 
     Minnesota and Rhode Island, restoration of firearms rights is 
     automatic, without any review at all, for many nonviolent 
     felons, usually once they finish their sentences, or after a 
     certain amount of time crime-free. Even violent felons may 
     petition to have their firearms rights restored in states 
     like Ohio, Minnesota and Virginia. Some states, including 
     Georgia and Nebraska, award scores of pardons every year that 
     specifically confer gun privileges.
       Felons face steep odds, though, in states like California, 
     where the governor's office gives out only a handful of 
     pardons every year, if that.
       ``It's a long, drawn-out process,'' said Steve Lindley, 
     chief of the State Department of Justice's firearms bureau. 
     ``They were convicted of a felony crime. There are penalties 
     for that.''
       Studies on the impact of gun restrictions largely support 
     barring felons from possessing firearms.
       One study, published in the American Journal of Public 
     Health in 1999, found that denying handgun purchases to 
     felons cut their risk of committing new gun or violent crimes 
     by 20 to 30 percent. A year earlier, a study in the Journal 
     of the American Medical Association found that handgun 
     purchasers with at least one prior misdemeanor--not even a 
     felony--were more than seven times as likely as those with no 
     criminal history to be charged with new offenses over a 15-
     year period.
       Criminologists studying recidivism have found that felons 
     usually have to stay out of trouble for about a decade before 
     their risk of committing a crime equals that of people with 
     no records. According to Alfred Blumstein, a professor at 
     Carnegie Mellon University, for violent offenders, that 
     period is 11 to 15 years; for drug offenders, 10 to 14 years; 
     and for those who have committed property crimes, 8 to 11 
     years. An important caveat: Professor Blumstein did not look 
     at what happens when felons are given guns.
       The history of the federal firearms agency's own 
     restoration program, though, offers reason for caution. The 
     program came under attack in the early 1990s, when the 
     Violence Policy Center, a gun control group, discovered that 
     dozens of felons granted restorations over a five-year period 
     had been arrested again, including some on charges of 
     attempted murder and sexual assault. (The center also found 
     that many of those granted gun rights were felons convicted 
     of violent or drug-related crimes.) In the resulting uproar 
     and over the objections of the N.R.A., Congress killed the 
     program.


                         A Superficial Process

       In 2001, three police officers in the Columbia Heights 
     suburb of Minneapolis were shot and wounded by a convicted 
     murderer whose firearms rights had been restored 
     automatically in 1987, 10 years after he completed a six-and-
     a-half year prison sentence and then probation for killing 
     his estranged wife and a family friend with a shotgun. (The 
     State Legislature had imposed the 10-year waiting period for 
     violent felons after it discovered what Senator Durenberger 
     had feared: that felons' gun rights would be restored 
     immediately under the Firearm Owners Protection Act.)
       What happened in the wake of the shooting is emblematic of 
     how the issue has played out in many states, particularly 
     where the gun lobby is powerful.
       Two Democratic legislators sought to impose a lifetime 
     firearms ban on violent felons, although they concluded that 
     for their bills to have any chance of passing, they would 
     also have to set up a process that held out a hope of 
     eventual restoration. They were unable, however, to get their 
     bills through the Legislature.
       The issue was taken up the following year by Republican 
     lawmakers, but it became wrapped up in legislation to relax 
     concealed-weapons laws. Initially, a moderate Republican 
     introduced a bill with a 5- to 10-year waiting period for 
     regaining gun rights, but the waiting period was scrapped 
     entirely in the law, written by gun-rights advocates, that 
     was finally enacted in 2003. That law, which does not even 
     mandate that prosecutors be notified of the hearings, 
     requires judges to grant the requests merely if the 
     petitioners show ``good cause.''
       ``The decision was, we have good judges and we trust 
     them,'' said Joseph Olson, who helped write the statute as 
     president of the advocacy group Concealed Carry Reform Now.
       One man who has benefited from a Minnesota judge's gun 
     rights ruling is William Holisky.
       Mr. Holisky, an accountant who has struggled with bipolar 
     disorder and alcoholism, had gone out only a few times with 
     Karen Roman, a nurse he had met online, before she broke up 
     with him.
       In August 2006, Ms. Roman was getting ready to work a night 
     shift, putting on makeup in the bathroom of her home in 
     Duluth, when she heard a truck pulling up and a loud boom. 
     Moments later, she heard another boom and glass breaking. She 
     hit the floor, calling out to her teenage son in the other 
     room to do the same as she crawled to the phone to dial 911.
       The police arrested Mr. Holisky later that night for 
     drunken driving. Several months later, they charged him in 
     the shooting as well. He pleaded guilty to second-degree 
     assault with a dangerous weapon.
       Around the same time, he also pleaded guilty to a felony 
     charge of making terroristic threats against an elderly 
     neighbor. The woman had reported to the police that someone--
     she suspected Mr. Holisky--had left her a threatening and 
     obscene note. She had also reported a series of escalating 
     incidents that included harassing telephone calls, his 
     entering her apartment and someone's smashing her bedroom 
     window. Mr. Holisky also had a misdemeanor burglary 
     conviction from 2003, for breaking into an ex-girlfriend's 
     house, as well as another misdemeanor conviction for 
     violating an order of protection.
       In Mr. Holisky's gun rights hearing in October 2010 in Two 
     Harbors, a small town on the north shore of Lake Superior, 
     Russell Conrow, the prosecutor in Lake County, argued that 
     Mr. Holisky had not yet proved that he could stay clean, 
     given that he had just gotten out of prison. Mr. Conrow also 
     pointed out that there were two active orders of protection 
     against Mr. Holisky.
       ``There were people still scared of him,'' Mr. Conrow said 
     recently.
       For his part, Mr. Holisky took documents from the plea 
     agreement in his assault case, in which the prosecutor in 
     neighboring St. Louis County agreed not to oppose the 
     restoration of his firearms rights.
       Mr. Holisky, who is 59, did not specify in his often-
     rambling petition exactly why he wanted a gun. He described 
     his behavior in 2006 as an ``aberration.''
       The county judge, Kenneth Sandvik, was set to retire in a 
     few months. He knew Mr. Holisky's family from growing up in 
     the community. Several weeks later, he ruled that Mr. Holisky 
     had met the basic requirements of the law.
       In an interview, Judge Sandvik said he had given 
     considerable weight to the St. Louis County prosecutor's 
     agreement not to oppose the restoration of gun rights for Mr. 
     Holisky. But Gary Bjorklund, an assistant St. Louis County 
     attorney, said in an interview that he had been focused on 
     extracting a guilty plea that would send Mr. Holisky to 
     prison and had thought no judge would take a firearms request 
     from Mr. Holisky seriously.
       Judge Sandvik acknowledged that he had not looked into the 
     details of Mr. Holisky's assault case, arguing that his job 
     had been only to review what the prosecutor had presented to 
     him.
       ``We're not investigators,'' he said.
       The ease with which Mr. Holisky regained his gun rights 
     does not appear to be an anomaly. Using partial data from 
     Minnesota's Judicial Branch, The Times identified more than 
     70 cases since 2004 of people convicted of ``crimes of 
     violence'' who have gotten their gun rights back. A closer 
     look at a number of them found a superficial process. The 
     cases included those of Mr. Krueger, who criticized the 
     system as insufficiently rigorous after winning back his gun 
     rights in a perfunctory hearing, and of another man whose 
     petition was approved without even a hearing, even though his 
     felony involved pulling a gun on a man.
       The ruling in Mr. Holisky's case prompted members of his 
     family to write a series of frantic e-mails to Judge Sandvik 
     and Mr. Conrow, warning of dire consequences.
       It is not entirely clear whether Mr. Holisky, who did not 
     respond to several requests for comment, is legally able to 
     buy a gun at this point, because at least one of the 
     outstanding orders of protection, which expires next year, 
     appears to trip another federal prohibition. But Mr. Holisky 
     has been writing letters to relatives in Texas, threatening 
     legal action if they do not turn over his gun collection.
       So far, they have refused.


                     A Killer's Successful Petition

       Just as in Minnesota, violent felons in Ohio are allowed to 
     apply for restoration of firearms rights after completing 
     their sentences. The statute is similarly vague, requiring 
     only that a judge find that the petitioner has ``led a law-
     abiding life since discharge or release, and appears likely 
     to do so.''
       Only a handful of county clerks in Ohio said they could 
     track these cases, producing records on several dozen 
     restorations. They included people who had been convicted of 
     first-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, felonious 
     assault and sexual battery.
       The case of Charles Hairston in Cuyahoga County stands out.
       Mr. Hairston was 17 in January 1971, when he shot a man to 
     death in Winston-Salem, N.C. Mr. Hairston and a group of 
     neighborhood toughs had been preparing to rob a local grocery 
     store when the owner, Charles Minor, 55, closed up and headed 
     for his car.
       ``I am fixing to get him,'' Mr. Hairston told one of his 
     friends, according to witness statements to the police, 
     before he pulled the trigger on a 20-gauge shotgun.
       Mr. Hairston spent 18 years in prison before being released 
     on parole in 1989. He moved to Cleveland and started working 
     in heating and cooling, a trade he had learned behind bars.
       In 1995, he pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge for 
     allegedly grabbing and pushing his wife.

[[Page 17324]]

       More seriously, later that year he was indicted on 60 
     counts of rape, felonious sexual penetration and gross sexual 
     imposition; prosecutors charged that he had forced sex upon 
     his stepdaughter, starting when she was 12. He was acquitted 
     of the most serious charges and convicted only of corruption 
     of a minor for one encounter at a motel for which prosecutors 
     were able to provide corroborating evidence beyond the girl's 
     detailed testimony.
       Mr. Hairston, who denies the charges and is still fighting 
     the conviction, filed his first gun rights restoration 
     application in 2006 in Cuyahoga County but was summarily 
     denied.
       When he filed a new petition two years later, a judge 
     thought he was ineligible and denied him again, though she 
     wrote in her decision that she did not believe Mr. Hairston 
     was likely to break the law again. But an appeals court ruled 
     that the judge had misread the statute, and sent the case 
     back for another hearing late last year.
       The county prosecutor's office had vigorously opposed the 
     restoration from the beginning. But Mr. Hairston, who took in 
     several friends as character witnesses, told the judge he had 
     grown up in prison.
       ``Nearly 40 years ago, you know, I was a dumb kid,'' Mr. 
     Hairston said at his first hearing. He added, ``I am in a 
     situation now where if, God forbid, if someone was to come 
     into my home and attack me, my wife, there isn't a lot I 
     could say about it, there isn't a lot I could do.''
       In the end, the judge, Hollie L. Gallagher, granted his 
     petition without comment.
       Soon after the judge's ruling, Mr. Hairston obtained a 
     concealed weapons permit from a neighboring county and bought 
     a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun.


                           Returning to Crime

       Erik Zettergren originally lost his gun rights in 1987 
     because of a felony conviction for dealing marijuana. A 
     decade later, the police went to his house after being called 
     by his ex-wife and discovered a cache of guns. He was 
     convicted of another felony, unlawful possession of a 
     firearm.
       He relinquished his weapons to friends but eventually got 
     them back, sometimes hiding them in an old car in his 
     backyard, according to friends. Sometime after that, though, 
     he became worried that the police might come after him again 
     and turned over the guns--two long guns and a Glock pistol--
     to a friend, Tom Williams.
       ``I kept them under my bed,'' Mr. Williams said.
       In December 2004, Mr. Zettergren successfully petitioned in 
     Kittitas County--a three-hour drive from his home--to have 
     his gun rights restored. (Like Minnesota's, Washington's law 
     allows petitioners to apply anywhere.) Court records show he 
     did not even have a hearing. Instead, his lawyer, Paul T. 
     Ferris, who specializes in these cases, took care of the 
     matter.
       Right away, Mr. Zettergren retrieved his guns from Mr. 
     Williams and soon obtained a concealed pistol license. He 
     made something of a sport of showing off his Glock to 
     friends. ``He was so proud of that thing,'' said Larry 
     Persons, a friend. ``He was flashing it in front of 
     everybody.''
       Not long after, he would use it in the killing.
       Washington's gun rights restoration statute dates to a 1995 
     statewide initiative, the Hard Times for Armed Crimes Act, 
     that toughened penalties for crimes involving firearms. The 
     initiative was spearheaded, in part, by pro-gun activists, 
     including leaders of the Second Amendment Foundation, an 
     advocacy group, and the N.R.A.
       Although it drew little notice at the time, the legislation 
     also included an expansion of what had been very limited 
     eligibility for restoration of firearms rights.
       ``There were a lot of people who we felt should be able to 
     get their gun rights restored who could not,'' said Alan M. 
     Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, who was 
     active in the effort.
       Under the legislation, ``Class A'' felons--who have 
     committed the most serious crimes, like murder and 
     manslaughter--are ineligible, as are sex offenders. 
     Otherwise, judges are required to grant the petitions as long 
     as, essentially, felons have not been convicted of any new 
     crimes in the five years after completing their sentences. 
     Judges have no discretion to deny the requests based upon 
     character, mental health or any other factors. Mr. Gottlieb 
     said they explicitly wrote the statute this way.
       ``We were having problems with judges that weren't going to 
     restore rights no matter what,'' he said.
       The statute's mix of strictness and leniency makes 
     Washington a useful testing ground.
       The Times's analysis found that among the more than 400 
     people who committed crimes after winning back their gun 
     rights under the new law, more than 70 committed Class A or B 
     felonies. Over all, more than 80 were convicted of some sort 
     of assault and more than 100 of drug offenses.
       There were cases like that of Mitchell W. Reed, 
     disqualified from possessing firearms after a 1984 felony 
     cocaine conviction. He also has seven misdemeanor convictions 
     on his record from the 1980s, including for assault. In 2003, 
     he successfully petitioned for his gun rights in Snohomish 
     County Superior Court.
       His wife, Debi Reed, went with him to the hearing and said 
     in an interview that she had been shocked at how easily his 
     rights were restored. He immediately bought a 9-millimeter 
     semiautomatic handgun.
       The following year, she said, he beat her up for the first 
     time. In 2008 he became more angry and violent, she said, in 
     one instance putting a gun in her hand during an argument, 
     pointing it at his head and saying he was going to frame her 
     for murder. During another fight that year, he struck her 
     with a gun, giving her a black eye, and held a loaded gun to 
     her head.
       Mr. Reed was ultimately arrested in 2009 and charged with 
     harassing and threatening to kill his wife's ex-husband. 
     While those charges were pending, he was arrested on second-
     degree assault charges after he beat up and tried to strangle 
     his wife. The charging documents also mentioned the 2008 gun 
     episode. He eventually pleaded guilty to third-degree assault 
     and intimidating a witness, as well as fourth-degree assault 
     and harassment.
       Jason C. Keller, disqualified because of a 1997 burglary 
     conviction, had his rights restored after a brief hearing in 
     2006. He waited a few years before buying a Hi-Point .40-
     caliber semiautomatic pistol, according to his girlfriend at 
     the time, Shawna Braylock. But she did not trust him with the 
     gun because of his temper, making him keep it at his parents' 
     house.
       In 2010, Mr. Keller left a Fourth of July party in the late 
     evening, picked up his gun and drove to the house of a woman 
     he knew. He fired several shots as she stood out front with 
     her 9-year-old son; her 6-year-old daughter was sleeping 
     inside. Mr. Keller pleaded guilty to drive-by shooting, a 
     felony.
       In Mr. Zettergren's case, his friends said they were 
     shocked that a judge had restored his gun rights, because 
     they knew he was receiving disability payments, in part 
     because of mental health problems.
       ``Most of the people around here that knew him, knew that 
     he could be dangerous,'' said Darrell Reinhardt, one of Mr. 
     Zettergren's friends.
       Mr. Zettergren's mental health issues, in fact, have been 
     at the heart of his efforts to appeal his convictions for 
     second-degree murder, second-degree assault and unlawful 
     imprisonment. He had been in counseling since 2000, and 
     several mental health experts had found he had post-traumatic 
     stress disorder and major depression, saying he had a ``very 
     high degree of psychological disturbance'' and suffered 
     frequent ``flashbacks and disturbing images,'' according to a 
     declaration from a forensic psychologist in one of Mr. 
     Zettergren's appeal briefs. The post-traumatic stress, 
     according to the psychologist, resulted from scenes he had 
     witnessed years before, including his mother's death by 
     electrocution and the shooting death of a friend.
       None of this was reviewed by the judge who heard Mr. 
     Zettergren's gun rights petition.
       Donna Bly, the mother of Jason Robinson, Mr. Zettergren's 
     shooting victim, considered suing the county for negligence 
     over the decision but could not find a lawyer to take the 
     case. She also tried bringing the issue up with a state 
     legislator but got nowhere.
       ``This man did not deserve to have his gun rights back,'' 
     she said.

  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In 2007 a Colorado man named Matthew Murray allegedly wrote online, 
``All I want to do is kill and injure as many Christians as I can.'' 
Murray then went on to a shooting rampage, first killing two young 
students at a missionary training center outside of Denver. And then at 
a gathering of 7,000 people in and around the New Life Church in 
Colorado Springs, Colorado, with a rifle and a backpack full of 
ammunition, Murray entered the church and opened fire, killing two 
sisters. Murray was ultimately stopped and killed by a church member 
and a volunteer security guard, Jeanne Assam, who has a concealed-carry 
permit and once worked in law enforcement. Assam shot Murray several 
times, leading him to kill himself.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  In hearing the story of my friend from Florida and my colleague on 
the Rules Committee, again I think it just emphasizes that my State, 
Colorado, also has a concealed-carry process. We have a must-issue 
provision. Some of our county sheriffs were not issuing and were 
denying issuance unreasonably. Again, it highlights that this entire 
bill is a dangerous solution in search of a problem.
  Colorado has reciprocal concealed-carry arrangements with over 30 
States, including all of our neighboring

[[Page 17325]]

States. So you can drive from Colorado to Wyoming in the north, to the 
south to New Mexico, and east or west, and you're in no danger about 
your concealed weapon permit not being recognized.
  And, yes, there are some States that we don't have a reciprocal 
agreement from. For instance, the State of Nevada. I fail to be 
convinced that the proper venue for that is not for the people of the 
sovereign State of Nevada and the sovereign State of Colorado to elect 
leadership that will work on a reciprocal carry arrangement if that's 
what they want to do. If there is a real issue there, and my 
constituents are hampered by their ability not to have their Colorado 
concealed weapons permit recognized let's say in the State of 
California, that's a matter between the States.
  Opening the door for Federal intervention in this very sensitive area 
opens the door to a Federal gun owner registry, which a number of gun 
rights advocates in my district have expressed a great deal of worry 
over, as well as opening the door for a whole host of other problems 
that can come from Washington, D.C., bureaucrats deciding where you can 
and can't take your guns rather than protecting our Second Amendment in 
the States.
  Some other concerns have been articulated to me from some of the gun 
owner rights groups in the State of Colorado. They're worried about 
more onerous standards to acquire a permit. They're worried about a 
national database of permit holders. They're also worried about this 
particular provision nullifying the constitutional carry provisions 
that are on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming. And 
that States that have a popular election method of amending the 
Constitution are able to do so.
  So again, what's the problem? I have not had any constituents contact 
me worried that they can't use their concealed weapons permit in a 
particular State. I think they are generally, and I have many 
concealed-carry license holders in my district. I don't happen to be 
one myself, but they are able to, again, in all the bordering States 
drive across State borders and not have to worry about relicensing or 
notifying authorities in those States. I think the gentleman from 
Florida articulated an example in Colorado where our concealed-carry 
permit holder helped save some lives, and I think that is a fine and 
good thing. Again, it is an area of State sovereignty.
  I asked the chair of the Judiciary Committee yesterday in Rules 
whether he thought this provision was constitutionally required to 
protect the Second Amendment. He responded that no, the State does not 
have to have a concealed weapons system, a concealed-carry system under 
the Second Amendment. It is a matter of discretion or policy in that 
State.
  I think this bill runs contrary to State sovereignty and to the 
privacy of individuals. That's why I encourage my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. NUGENT. The gentleman talks about States' rights. We agree, there 
are States that do not have concealed-carry permits. So it is within 
the States' rights to decide how they are going to regulate that 
particular issue in regards to weapons in their State.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Florida for handling the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the 
underlying bill. As a life member of the National Rifle Association and 
strong supporter of the Second Amendment to the United States 
Constitution, I am pleased to speak in support of H.R. 822, the 
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which will help protect law-
abiding American citizens' right to bear arms.
  The Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that ``the 
inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment 
right,'' and in McDonald v. City of Chicago that the Federal Government 
can intervene to ensure that State and local governments are not 
restricting Second Amendment rights. Statistics show correlation 
between right-to-carry laws and a decrease in violent crime rates. 
According to NRA estimates based on the FBI's Annual Uniform Crime 
Report, States that have right-to-carry laws have 22 percent lower 
total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent 
lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates 
compared to the rest of the country.
  Law-abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves from 
criminals and defend themselves with firearms. Throughout my career in 
elected office, I have worked with my colleagues to ensure that 
American citizens maintain their Second Amendment rights.
  Each State has different eligibility requirements, and H.R. 822 
maintains the State's ability to set its own eligibility. However, the 
bill would end uncertainty and confusion for concealed-carry permit 
holders when they travel.
  Forty-nine States allow individuals to conceal and carry handguns, 
and the bill before us would allow individuals who hold a concealed-
carry permit in their State of residence to carry that weapon in other 
States that allow concealed carry. Madam Speaker, this rule should be 
passed unanimously, as should the underlying bill.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record 
dissenting views from the Judiciary Committee, entitled, ``Loosening 
Restrictions on the Carrying of Concealed Guns in Public Does Not 
Improve Public Safety.''

       Concealed carry laws have not made us safer. As a result, 
     forcing states with strict permitting standards to recognize 
     permits issued by states with weak standards would make us 
     even less safe. Proponents of H.R. 822 have cited research by 
     John Lott that has been widely discredited. In fact, as 
     columnist Michelle Malkin has pointed out, Lott has been 
     accused of fabricating a study on which he bases the claim 
     that 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved mere 
     brandishing as opposed to shooting. Malkin reported that Lott 
     incorrectly tried to attribute the data to three different 
     studies, and when another researcher offered to independently 
     verify Lott's findings, Lott claimed to have lost all of his 
     data in a computer crash. He also could not produce any 
     financial records, contemporaneous records or any of the 
     students who supposedly worked on the survey. 78 other 
     studies conclude that guns are far more likely to be used in 
     crime than in self-defense. One such study found that the 
     number of criminal gun uses outnumbered the self-defense use 
     of a gun by a factor of at least 4 to 1.79

  At this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
  Mr. BOREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 822, the 
National Right-to-Carry Act of 2011. The Second Amendment of the United 
States Constitution provides citizens with the individual right to keep 
and bear arms. This right enables Americans to use firearms for self-
protection, for hunting, and for other lawful activities.
  H.R. 822 would guarantee that individuals who are legally licensed to 
carry a concealed weapon in their home State could also legally carry a 
concealed weapon in another State. The bill seeks to protect our 
fundamental liberty, not restrict it. Just as one State recognizes a 
driver's license issued by another State, I believe States should 
recognize conceal-and-carry licenses issued by another.
  Today, some States already have reciprocity agreements to recognize 
the conceal-and-carry laws of other States, while some do not. The 
result is a piecemeal system where a law-abiding citizen may be 
required to give up his or her weapon at a State line. If passed, this 
bill would streamline the system by making it more simple and uniform. 
H.R. 822 does not create Federal standards for obtaining permits nor 
does it require States to adopt a specific licensing system. Each 
State's right to determine its own permitting system will remain intact 
regardless of H.R. 822.
  Since the founding of our Nation, American citizens have had the 
constitutional right to bear arms, and I believe this legislation is a 
commonsense solution to preserve that right. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``yes'' on the rule today and to support final passage of H.R. 
822.
  Mr. NUGENT. I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 17326]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. It's sad that we're taking time that should be spent 
on the economy and making communities safer and stronger to facilitate, 
instead, less rational and less effective gun safety laws.
  I deeply appreciate the gentlewoman from New York putting The New 
York Times article from last Sunday in the Record. The gentleman from 
Florida talks about his experience. Well, in that article is sad 
evidence. For example, in the State of Washington where that tragic 
occurrence occurred, since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people 
convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors have regained gun rights. 
And according to the analysis provided by the State court system, of 
those, more than 400, about 13 percent, have subsequently committed new 
crimes, and more than 200 committed felonies including murder, assault 
in the first and second degree, child rape, and drive-by shooting.
  The gentleman talks about evidence. Well, the study in the American 
Public Health Journal referenced in that article found that denying 
handgun purchases to felons cut the risk of their committing new gun or 
violent crimes by 20 to 30 percent. And another study by the Journal of 
the American Medical Association found that handgun purchasers with at 
least one prior misdemeanor--not a felony, a misdemeanor--were more 
than seven times as likely as those with no criminal record to be 
charged with new offenses.
  I come from a State that would have its protections undermined by 
this proposal. Now, I think that the fact that we require character 
references, that people have to be 21 years of age, and that we 
prohibit concealed weapon carrying by dangerous criminals--those 
convicted of a misdemeanor such as assault, harassment, or driving 
while intoxicated--I think those are reasonable. That's the minimum in 
Oregon. And instead, the enactment of this legislation will enable a 
race to the bottom where the lowest common denominator will determine 
gun safety laws in Oregon. I think that's wrong.
  I urge a rejection of the rule and the bill.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. 
Scott.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, this bill undermines public 
safety, and that's why law enforcement organizations oppose the bill. 
It's said that this is no national law established by this legislation. 
That's right, because if there were a national law, there would be 
national standards. This is actually worse. The law, in effect, will 
actually be the law of the State with the weakest concealed weapons 
permits that will essentially become the law of the land, because you 
could use that permit in any State. This bill allows people who are 
ineligible to get a concealed weapons permit in their home State to go 
to another jurisdiction and get a concealed weapons permit and use that 
concealed weapons permit anywhere in the country except their home 
State.
  Now States have different minimum standards for concealed weapons, 
such as some require minimum training so that you know what you're 
dealing with. Others deny permits to certain sex offenders or domestic 
violence offenders. All of those minimum standards would be overridden 
by this bill because permits from other States will have to be 
recognized.
  The basic controversy, Madam Speaker, presented by this bill is the 
question of what happens if more people carry firearms. Some people 
believe that if more people carry firearms, the crime rate will go 
down. The studies that I've seen conclude that if more people are 
carrying firearms, it is more likely that someone in their home or an 
innocent neighbor will be killed. That's more likely than the firearm 
being successfully used to thwart a crime.
  We should not undermine public safety. We should allow States to set 
their own concealed weapons standards and defeat this rule, and if the 
rule passes, defeat the bill.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 822. 
As you know, this committee voted down a motion to consider the bill 
under an open rule. This is such an important issue that we really need 
to have the entire Nation hear about it and have all of us have our 
voices heard.
  I want to make sure that I get to speak on an amendment of mine that 
is going to be considered. Under my amendment, States would be required 
to proactively opt-in to the agreements called for by H.R. 822. This 
would restore the critical decision of who should be able to carry a 
concealed handgun in our communities back to where it belongs--to the 
local governments that have to deal with the policing and other 
consequences such as this provision will do. We also will hear about 
other amendments that would restore rights back to States and safety 
back to our communities and some sanity back into this debate.
  Madam Speaker, I think it's extremely important that we look at this 
as a States' rights issue. My State has concealed weapons laws. We 
allow people to have concealed weapons. But there are other States that 
do not come up to our standard, and we don't want them coming into our 
State and telling us what to do. I suggest that we really look at this 
very carefully, and hopefully my colleagues will definitely vote for my 
amendment tomorrow when it comes up.
  We can deal with this. The Supreme Court has said people have the 
right to own a gun. They also said localities have the right to make 
the laws safe for their constituents. I happen to believe that H.R. 822 
and the way this rule is written is not good for the United States of 
America, it's not good for the people of America, and I know it's not 
good for my State of New York.

                              {time}  1310

  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
the underlying bill and the rule. This is a critical issue with respect 
to Americans' basic rights.
  Courts have held over almost a century and a half that the right to 
bear arms is simply more than the Second and the 14th Amendment. It 
decided in the case of Beard v. U.S. in 1895 that citizens were 
entitled to repel force by force, and entitled to stand their ground 
and meet any attack made on them by a deadly weapon. They then ruled 3 
years ago in the D.C. v. Heller case, where they essentially declared 
self-defense as an inherent right central to the Second Amendment. And 
then in the case emanating in my State of Illinois, in the case of 
McDonald v. City of Chicago, further elaborated and extended that 
constitutional protection.
  So the underlying bill and American citizens' right and the ability 
to carry firearms from State to State and to have that essential right 
built in, I think, is critical.
  I rise in reluctant support, however, of the rule and the bill only 
from this standpoint, and that's the reason, in part, for my time here 
today, which I thank the gentleman for and I thank the Members of this 
Chamber for.
  Illinois is unique in that we have no carry-conceal weapon law. We 
have no ability on the part of Illinois citizens to defend themselves. 
We have no right or ability on the part of Illinois citizens to 
exercise their Second and 14th Amendment rights. This bill, as it now 
reads, would extend the right only to other States--and I'm supportive 
of that because I think it's critical that we extend that right--but I 
am committed, as well as a number of my Illinois colleagues, and I 
think Second Amendment and fundamental rights Congressmen throughout 
the United

[[Page 17327]]

States, to restore that right and to bring that right to Illinois 
citizens.
  Time after time after time, as I visit the coffee houses, as I meet 
with individuals throughout the district, as I meet with people 
throughout the State, we are essentially denied in Illinois the rights 
and privileges of every other citizen of every other State in the Union 
except Illinois. That's a glaring deficiency, it's an omission, and I 
believe, frankly, that it strikes at the core of our constitutional 
guarantees.
  I am going to continue to fight, not only on this bill, but on 
standalone legislation down the line and through the process to bring 
to Illinois the same rights, keep and bear arms, Second and 14th 
Amendment rights, that other citizens have throughout the country. It's 
extraordinarily important. It reaches at the essence of our 
Constitution, the essence of our guarantees as participants in a 
republic of civil liberties, and I believe that it is critical that we 
continue the fight now together with my colleagues, Congressman 
Hultgren and others from Illinois who have joined me in this process.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NUGENT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. I appreciate the time.
  I support the bill. I support the rule. But I also support--and I 
want to conclude by saying this--Illinois citizens' right to keep and 
bear arms that are being flagrantly denied by our Illinois legislature.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. 
Johnson.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
rule and the bill, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. It's 
the epitome of Federal arrogance that would impose its will on the 50 
State legislatures in this country.
  This bill tramples on our system of federalism and endangers the 
public safety by forcing States to allow the carrying of concealed 
firearms by out-of-state residents even if they have not met basic 
licensing or training requirements mandated for carrying in that State.
  This total disregard for State laws may come as a shock to Americans 
who have always been told that these Tea Party Republicans want to 
shrink the scope of the Federal Government, but instead of creating 
jobs, we are here considering--strongly--a bill that is opposed by law 
enforcement officials throughout the States and throughout the country. 
This bill is nothing more than a piece of special interest legislation 
for the National Rifle Association.
  Under this bill, States will no longer be able to set standards for 
who may carry concealed, loaded guns in public. States that prevent 
those convicted of violent crime from carrying a concealed weapon would 
no longer be able to enforce their State laws. The Second Amendment 
protects the right to bear arms, but it is not, ladies and gentlemen, 
absolute.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
  Mr. POMPEO. I applaud the House for taking up H.R. 822, the National 
Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. As a veteran and a strong defender of 
the Second Amendment, I encourage all of my colleagues to support me in 
this important piece of legislation.
  In Kansas, in 2007, we began to issue concealed-carry permits. Since 
then, Kansas has entered into agreements with many other States across 
the region to create interstate reciprocity. And while many States have 
similar agreements, they benefit only a portion of the American 
population that have this basic fundamental right to keep and bear 
arms.
  The legislation and the rule we're considering today offer an 
opportunity for the Federal Government to facilitate cohesion between 
the States without extending its reach further into our laws than is 
necessary. The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act would allow 
concealed-carry permits in one State to be legally recognized in 
another and accepted in every other State of the Union that has similar 
set of laws.
  Under the bill, everyone is still required to follow the firearm laws 
in each of the different States in which they choose to carry. Our 
Founding Fathers considered this right to bear arms so important they 
put it in the Constitution. Allowing this reciprocity is a simple act 
of extending what our founders originally intended.
  I hope that Congress will honor this principle by supporting this 
rule and passing this bill, which at its core does nothing more than 
protect the Second Amendment right of every Kansan and every law-
abiding citizen.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I advise my colleague from Massachusetts 
that I have one remaining speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Then I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend on the Rules Committee for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of this rule today. Now, I hear a lot of 
conversation about States' rights here on the House floor--federalism, 
you know, that debate that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had more 
than two centuries ago. It's an important debate to have, and I hope we 
have that debate on every single thing that we do in this body. I hope 
we ask ourselves that question every single day: Is this a 
responsibility and a role the Federal Government ought to be playing, 
or should this be something that's left to the States?
  Sadly, I've heard more of that enthusiasm today than I usually hear 
down here, but I welcome it--not as a step in the wrong direction, but 
a step towards that new beginning. I believe that we can absolutely 
come together around those kinds of uniting issues: Does the Federal 
Government need to be involved in this or does it not?
  The reason I'm in strong support of this rule, however, is that it 
made 10 amendments in order. You know, this bill, this concealed-carry 
reciprocity bill--and in fairness, full disclosure, I'm literally a 
card-carrying member of the concealed-carry bandwagon. I've got my 
Georgia carry permit here in my pocket, I have since I was 22 and 
living in a neighborhood that I thought I needed some self-protection 
living in.
  This is a discussion that this body has been trying to have for about 
15 years. As long as I can remember watching Congress, this bill has 
been knocking around in Congress and no one has ever brought it to the 
floor of the House despite a broad bipartisan majority of the body 
cosponsoring it. I've always wondered why, because for Pete's sakes, if 
it's something that a majority of the body is going to cosponsor, then 
it ought to be something that the majority of the body is going to 
support, and we ought to bring it to the House floor and let the House 
work its will.
  I'm still struggling with the underlying legislation, but I 
appreciate this leadership and this Rules Committee for bringing a bill 
to the floor when more than a majority of the House has cosponsored it. 
And I appreciate this leadership and this Rules Committee for giving us 
10 amendments from which to choose to improve the bill. There are opt-
in provisions if you're worried about federalism. There are honor State 
compact amendments if you're worried about federalism. There are study 
amendments with the GAO to sort out whether or not there are unintended 
consequences with regard to nonresident permits.

                              {time}  1320

  These choices are out there for us. Not only did this Rules Committee 
bring forward a bill that other Congresses have not had the courage to 
bring forward, but it brought it forward in a way that this body can 
work its will. Eight Democratic amendments, as I recall, two Republican 
amendments. That's the kind of House I came to Congress as a freshman 
to work in.
  I appreciate the work the Rules Committee did to make this possible, 
and I appreciate, Madam Speaker, the work

[[Page 17328]]

of the leadership in guiding us down this path.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record 
an article from The New York Times, entitled, ``So Much for Small 
Government.''

                [From the New York Times, Oct. 25, 2011]

                      So Much for Small Government

       House Republicans usually claim to be champions of both 
     small government and states' rights, which makes it 
     hypocritical, and downright reckless, that they are obsessed 
     with taking away the authority of states to decide who is 
     allowed to carry a concealed and loaded handgun.
       On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee voted 19 to 11 
     for a measure that would do exactly that. Only one 
     Republican, Representative Dan Lungren of California, joined 
     the committee's Democratic members in voting against the 
     bill.
       This extreme legislation, the National Right-to-Carry 
     Reciprocity Act of 2011, would obliterate state and local 
     eligibility rules for concealed weapons and the state's 
     discretion to decide whether to honor another's permits.
       At least 36 states now set a minimum age of 21 for carrying 
     concealed guns, and 35 states require some sort of gun-safety 
     training. Thirty-eight states prohibit people convicted of 
     certain violent crimes like misdemeanor assault or sex crimes 
     from carrying concealed weapons.
       The act would override those rules, requiring states with 
     tight restrictions, like New York and California, to allow 
     people with permits from states with lax laws to tote 
     concealed and loaded guns in their jurisdiction. Wording 
     added by the committee exempts people with a concealed-carry 
     permit from one state from having to meet eligibility 
     standards set by the state they are visiting.
       The measure, pushed by the National Rifle Association, 
     would undermine legitimate states' rights by nationalizing 
     lenient gun rules most states have rejected for themselves. 
     It would increase the chance for gun violence and make it 
     harder to combat illegal gun trafficking.
       Nevertheless, the full House is expected to approve the 
     bill soon. That would leave it to the Senate, where a similar 
     bill could surface any day, to protect Americans. Much will 
     depend on Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader. 
     He voted for a similar measure two years ago while running 
     for reelection. Nevada law enforcement groups oppose the 
     bill, and the state recently ended reciprocity for concealed-
     carry permits with Utah and Florida out of concern about the 
     weak licensing rules in those states. For the safety of the 
     people in Nevada and elsewhere, he needs to lead in the right 
     direction this time.

  I would also like to insert into the Record an article by Frank 
Bruni, entitled, ``Have Glock, Will Travel.''

                [From the New York Times, Oct. 24, 2011]

                        Have Glock, Will Travel

                            (By Frank Bruni)

       Between the struggle to fold a sport jacket so it doesn't 
     wrinkle, the 45-minute wait on a security line if I'm flying, 
     the price of gas if I'm driving and the worry either way that 
     I left the coffee maker on, I thought I was pretty well 
     versed in the inconveniences and stresses of domestic travel.
       Hardly! Things could be much, much worse, namely if I were 
     a gun owner with a permit to carry a concealed firearm in my 
     home state and an itch to do so in any other state I visited 
     as well.
       As matters now stand, I'd have to defer to the laws of 
     those states, which vary widely. In some, my permit from back 
     home would suffice, even if getting it required little more 
     than proper adult identification, proof of residency and a 
     smile. The smile might even have been negotiable. A scowl and 
     a clean felony record and I was good to go.
       Other states are sticklers, recognizing only their own 
     concealed-carry permits and granting or withholding those 
     based on such killjoy criteria as whether someone has a 
     violent misdemeanor conviction, a history of alcohol abuse or 
     any actual training in weapon safety. Some free country, 
     ours.
       Thank heaven for the National Rifle Association, its sights 
     ever fixed on the forces that try to separate Americans from 
     the deadly firearms they like to keep snug at their sides.
       The N.R.A. is pushing a bill, the National Right-to-Carry 
     Reciprocity Act of 2011, that would eliminate the gun-toting 
     traveler's woes. Should it become law, any state that grants 
     concealed-carry permits, no matter how strict the conditions, 
     would be forced to honor a visitor's concealed-carry permit 
     from another state, no matter how lax that state's standards.
       Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A.'s chief lobbyist, recently wrote 
     that the current situation ``presents a nightmare for 
     interstate travel, as many Americans are forced to check 
     their Second Amendment rights, and their fundamental right to 
     self-defense, at the state line.''
       Nightmare? I think that term better applies to the N.R.A., 
     though it's not the first word that springs to mind when I 
     mull its current effort.
       Contradiction, hypocrisy: those words rush in ahead. The 
     bill thus far has more than 200 Republican cosponsors in the 
     House, many of them conservatives who otherwise complain 
     about attempts by an overbearing federal government to 
     trample on states' rights in the realms of health care, tort 
     reform, education--you name it. But to promote concealed 
     guns, they're encouraging big, bad Washington to trample to 
     its heart's content.
       Imagine how apoplectic they'd be if, on certain other 
     matters, Washington forced their states to yield to others' 
     values the way this bill, H.R. 822, would compel New York, 
     Massachusetts and Connecticut to honor more permissive gun-
     control regulations from the South and West. As it happens 
     these three Northeastern states all perform same-sex 
     marriages, which more conservative states do not have to 
     recognize.
       It's not fair to talk only about Republicans. H.R. 822 has 
     dozens of Democratic co-sponsors as well, and when Democrats 
     controlled Congress for the first two years of Barack Obama's 
     presidency, they made no major progress on gun control. 
     Reluctant to cross the N.R.A., they let it slide.
       In 2009, when Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in 
     the Senate, was about to enter a tough reelection battle in 
     Nevada, he actually voted in favor of legislation highly 
     similar to H.R. 822. It was defeated. That same year 
     President Obama signed a law permitting concealed guns in 
     national parks.
       The story on the state level has been just as sad over the 
     last few years. Wisconsin recently approved concealed-carry 
     legislation, leaving Illinois the only state in which 
     civilians can't carry concealed firearms. Several states have 
     enacted laws spelling out that concealed weapons can in many 
     circumstances be carried into bars.
       One was Tennessee, where a state lawmaker who sponsored the 
     legislation, Curry Todd, sometimes carries a loaded .38-
     caliber gun. I know this because it was beside him when 
     Nashville Cops pulled him over two weeks ago for drunken 
     driving. They also charged him with carrying a firearm in 
     public while intoxicated. At least that's still illegal.
       New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and 
     several other states don't have reciprocity arrangements that 
     allow someone like Todd to pay an armed courtesy call. That's 
     because New York officials can deny concealed-carry permits 
     on a case-by-case basis, whereas many other states--South 
     Dakota, for example--don't put much stock in such scrutiny.
       H.R. 822, now in the House Judiciary Committee, makes a 
     mockery of our diverse values and strategies for public 
     safety. If it were enacted, off to New York the South Dakotan 
     tourist could go, 9-millimeter Glock in tow.
       That's not liberty. More like lunacy.

  I would also like to insert into the Record a letter to the 
leadership of this House signed by Martha Coakley, the attorney general 
of Massachusetts, opposing this legislation.

         The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of the Attorney 
           General,
                                     Boston, MA, November 9, 2011.
     Re H.R. 822, ``National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 
         2011''.

     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Senate Majority Leader, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Republican Leader, Russell Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     House Democratic Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Honorable Congressional Leaders: As the chief law 
     enforcement officer for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I 
     am writing to express my strong opposition to H.R. 822, the 
     ``National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011,'' which 
     would permit individuals who are authorized to carry 
     concealed firearms in their state of residence to carry 
     concealed handguns in other states, forcing states to 
     recognize all other states' permits to carry concealed 
     firearms. Any legislation that would override the concealed 
     carry laws of nearly every state is an affront to states' 
     individual law enforcement efforts and should not be passed 
     into law.
       A national concealed carry reciprocity law would force 
     states to recognize every other state's permit to carry 
     concealed, loaded firearms, creating a lowest common 
     denominator approach to public safety that would undermine 
     state and municipal authorities, endanger police officers and 
     make it more difficult to prosecute gun traffickers. As you 
     know, states issue permits to carry concealed firearms, and 
     each state establishes its own criteria in deciding who may 
     carry concealed firearms within its jurisdiction. Indeed, 
     laws permitting individuals to carry concealed weapons vary 
     from state-to-state. For example, some states require 
     residents to complete training and meet other conditions 
     before obtaining a permit, while others do not.

[[Page 17329]]

       National concealed carry reciprocity could create serious 
     and potentially life-threatening situations for police 
     officers. During police traffic stops, it would be nearly 
     impossible for officers to verify every other state's carry 
     permits. In addition, this legislation would make it easier 
     for gun traffickers to travel across state lines with 
     concealed, loaded firearms, exposing police officers to 
     unnecessary danger and making our communities less safe.
       This dangerous initiative is opposed by a broad coalition 
     of national law enforcement organizations, including the 
     International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major 
     Cities Chiefs Association, and the Police Foundation; more 
     than 600 members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns; various 
     state law enforcement organizations; faith leaders; 
     prosecutors, including the American Prosecutors Association 
     and the American Bar Association; and the National Network to 
     End Domestic Violence, representing 56 domestic violence 
     prevention organizations nationwide--a similar coalition to 
     the one that helped to defeat this legislation on the floor 
     of the Senate in 2009.
       Massachusetts has some of most stringent firearms safety 
     protections in the nation. By allowing out-of-state permit 
     holders to bring concealed, loaded firearms into our 
     communities where they would not otherwise be allowed to 
     carry, this legislation would greatly undermine public safety 
     in our Commonwealth. A national concealed carry reciprocity 
     amendment puts our citizens and police at risk and takes away 
     the ability of state and local government to carefully craft 
     laws that protect the public.
       I urge Congress to defeat this dangerous initiative.
           Cordially,
                                                   Martha Coakley,
                                   Massachusetts Attorney General.

  Madam Speaker, we just heard from the gentleman from Georgia that we 
should somehow be grateful that the Rules Committee majority threw some 
crumbs our way. But the fact is this is not an open rule. This is not 
an open process. And for a majority that came in saying that everything 
was going to be open, they have not kept their promise, and this is far 
from it. A lot of good amendments were not made in order. Members don't 
have the right to offer amendments here on the floor.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, out of fairness, and 
especially my Republican friend, in keeping with your promise when you 
took the majority, please vote ``no'' on this rule.
  I will also say, Madam Speaker, that I oppose this bill because it 
tramples on the rights of my State and it tramples on the rights of a 
number of States that have reasonable guidelines for who can carry a 
concealed weapon. And under this bill, those guidelines all go away, so 
the lowest common denominator carries the day. I don't think that's 
good for public safety. And if you care about States' rights, it's not 
goods for States' rights advocates either.
  But I want to just spend my final moments just reminding my 
colleagues that we have an economic crisis before us. There are 14 
million Americans without jobs. There are millions more who are 
underemployed.
  We just came back from another congressional break. I don't know 
where you went on your congressional break, but if you went back to 
your district, I find it hard to believe that the most pressing issue 
that faces your constituency is trying to figure out a way to make it 
easier to carry concealed weapons from State to State to State. I just 
don't believe that that's what people are talking about, certainly not 
people in my congressional district. My people are talking about jobs.
  When I'm at the airport, people are talking to me about jobs. That's 
what they want us to focus on, not on reaffirming the national motto of 
the United States as ``In God We Trust.'' I mean, we wasted a day on 
that. It didn't need reaffirming. There it is right up there in gold 
lettering above where the Speaker sits. It's on the back of the dollar 
bill. Why did we have to spend time debating that?
  And today we're not talking about jobs; we're talking about a gun 
bill? Now, I know that the special interest lobbyist, the National 
Rifle Association, they like this and they want us to move forward on 
this. But put the special interests aside for a second and put your 
constituents first.
  What do our constituents want us to do? They want us to fix this 
economy. We should be debating some of the components of the 
President's jobs bill or a jobs bill of your own. But we should be 
talking about how to put people back to work, not spending time here 
talking about how to make it easier to carry a concealed weapon from 
State to State to State. This is nuts that we're spending and wasting 
this time on this issue.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia said a majority of Members 
favor this bill; therefore, we should bring it to the floor. Well, you 
know what? A majority of Members of this Chamber also support a bill to 
hold China accountable for the fact that China manipulates its currency 
and, as a result of that, if we actually held them accountable, we 
could actually create an estimated 1 million to 1.5 million jobs in 
America. A majority of Members of this House on both sides of the aisle 
support that, yet we can't get that to the floor. That will help create 
some jobs. I mean, there's bipartisan support for that. There's 
bipartisan support for the components of the President's jobs bill, yet 
you will not bring it to the floor. Instead, we're dealing with this 
stuff.
  Again, this may be good for pleasing the special interests, but it is 
not what we should be doing in this Chamber. What's good for this 
country is to focus on the economy. What's good for this country is to 
focus on jobs.
  I would say to my Republican friends, your indifference on the issue 
of jobs is shameful, is absolutely shameful. There are millions of 
Americans out of work, millions underemployed, people worried about 
whether they can pay their mortgages, pay their heating bills, pay 
their prescription drug bills, whether they can afford to send their 
kids to college, and this is what we're spending our time on? Give me a 
break.
  We need to refocus in this Congress. We need to get our priorities 
straight.
  I'm going to tell you, at the top of the list is not reaffirming the 
motto of this country. It's not abortion bills or gun bills. What's at 
the top of the list is jobs. Let's put America back to work.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule and vote 
``no'' on the underlying bill, and let's bring a jobs bill to this 
floor.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I am always amazed at what goes on in 
these Chambers. We hear from the other side of the aisle about talking 
about jobs, even though this House has passed 20--20, count them--jobs 
bills. If you don't believe it, read it.
  We talk about issues about ``In God We Trust.'' I think it is 
something that we should affirm here in America, about our belief in 
God.
  I believe that the Second Amendment is not a special interest group. 
I believe the Second Amendment needs to be protected at all costs. 
You've heard some in this House that would take away our right to even 
carry or possess a firearm.
  Madam Speaker, in 40 years in law enforcement, it wasn't just guns 
that killed people; it was every object imaginable, from fists to feet 
to pipes to kitchen knives and baseball bats.
  Madam Speaker, this is about the ability for those that have a 
legitimate carry permit to go across the State line and not be subject 
to arrest, someone who makes an honest mistake by going across the 
State line that doesn't have a reciprocity agreement with their current 
State and they have a carry permit.
  Madam Speaker, this is more about what's right with America in 
regards to upholding our Second Amendment, our constitutional right. 
And so those that are in favor of doing away with all types of guns, I 
guess, it smacks that they disagree with our Founding Fathers and our 
Second Amendment right.
  Madam Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to 
support it as well. H.R. 822 protects the rights of legal gun owners 
throughout the United States.
  I've heard this debate this afternoon about the dangers of gun crime. 
I completely agree. Guns are dangerous tools that need to be treated 
with respect. Guns can be used by people to kill other people. However, 
what I saw in those 40 years as a cop is we need to talk about these in 
broader terms.

[[Page 17330]]

What we really need to do is talk about the difference between legal 
and illegal guns.
  Most people who use a gun to kill a human being are not just using a 
gun they obtained legally, that they are licensed legally, that they 
got a legal concealed-carry permit for. When you look at the numbers of 
CCW permit holders that have actually violated the law, at least in the 
State of Florida, it's .001 percent.
  There are people that are criminals, and they're criminals simply for 
having a firearm. Even in the State of Florida, a felon can't possess a 
firearm. The discussion of what to do with these folks and how to keep 
them from illegally possessing a firearm is another debate at another 
time.
  Today we're talking about one thing. We're talking about legal gun 
owners to legally travel from one State to another that have a 
concealed weapons permit. I support that effort, and that's why I'm a 
proud cosponsor--and stand here today--of H.R. 822 and as the sponsor 
of this rule, H. Res. 463.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
strongly--I underline ``strongly''--bipartisan legislation.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________