[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5171-5172]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            GUN TRAFFICKING

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I tell the Senator from Nevada, we have 
been working very hard on that. It has bipartisan support. It had a 
bipartisan vote out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  We had been working on it with the National Rifle Association and a 
lot of others because this trafficking allows somebody who can 
legitimately buy weapons to go in and buy them and then sell them to 
people who are from a drug cartel in this country or others or to a 
gang member--people who could not have bought them legitimately. It is 
a huge loophole.
  We saw the same loophole in the murder of the head of the Colorado 
prison system. The man who we understand shot him would have been 
prohibited from buying a weapon, but somebody who could buy one bought 
it and passed it on to him.
  I want to thank Senators Manchin and Toomey for coming forward with 
their bipartisan amendment to close the gun show loophole and prevent 
criminals from obtaining firearms, while at the same time respecting 
and protecting the second amendment rights of responsible gun owners. 
These Senators have worked long and hard. They have studied the issue. 
They have compromised, and they have reached an agreement that I intend 
to support and I hope the Senate will adopt.
  The Senator from Nevada certainly hopes Senators will vote and not 
filibuster. The American people I think would consider it a disgrace if 
Senators were unwilling to stand and vote either yes or no. A 
filibuster means you vote maybe. I would hope, with only 100 of us to 
represent 314 million Americans, we would at least have the courage to 
vote yes or vote no. It may not be a popular vote either way you vote, 
but voting maybe--which is what a filibuster is--shows no respect for 
the Senate and shows no courage.
  We have had background checks for decades. They are an accepted part 
of the process of buying a gun. I am among millions of responsible gun 
owners who have undergone a background check as part of this process. 
And as I tell our gun dealers in Vermont when I buy a gun there, I am 
like millions of responsible gun owners. I understand this check is 
necessary and I have no problem going through it. But I expect 
everybody else to go through it because it keeps guns out of the hands 
of criminals and those who are a danger to themselves and others due to 
mental illness.
  Background checks work. Since 1998, over 2 million sales to 
prohibited people have been prevented thanks to background checks. That 
is 2 million times a potentially dangerous person trying to get a gun 
was denied a gun.
  Now some argue that background checks do not work because not enough 
people who fail the background check are later prosecuted. Failing a 
background check is not in itself a crime. Indeed, the main purpose of 
the background check is to prevent a prohibited person from getting the 
desired gun. Although not foolproof, the background check system we 
have had in place has succeeded in preventing dangerous people from 
getting guns over 2 million times. What we are now trying to do is 
improve the background check system. That is what the Manchin-Toomey 
amendment is trying to do. We all know there is a huge, huge loophole 
in that background check system. Criminals and other prohibited people 
who could not go in to a legitimate gun store in the Presiding 
Officer's State or my State can get around this by going to nonlicensed 
dealers at gun shows.
  I know gun store owners in Vermont. They follow the law and conduct 
background checks. They wonder why others who sell guns do not have to 
follow these same rules. I agree with these responsible business 
owners. Just as I go through a background check when I buy a gun, I 
want everybody to have to go through it and not be able to use the 
loophole.
  I have been voting to close this loophole for years. In 1999, when 
the Senate adopted an amendment to close the gun show loophole, we 
passed that provision after the tragedy at Columbine. Regrettably, the 
House would not pass the bill. Republican leadership at the time let 
the matter drop. I hope this time the House will join us to close the 
loophole once and for all.
  The Manchin-Toomey bipartisan amendment closes the loophole in a way 
that does not infringe upon second amendment rights. Sales at gun 
shows, sales using online or print advertising will be governed by the 
same kind of requirements that a gun store owner in Vermont or Virginia 
or anywhere else has to follow. It is going to make us safer. It will 
not confiscate anyone's guns. It will not create a government registry. 
It does not undermine the second amendment. No court has held that 
background checks, which have been with us for decades, violate the 
second amendment. Indeed, when the U.S. Supreme Court expressly held 
that the second amendment provides an individual right in the Heller 
case, it also said that ``longstanding provisions on the possession of 
firearms by felons and the mentally ill'' do not violate the second 
amendment.
  The compromise these Senators have presented to us is focused on gun 
shows and commercial sales. It does not require background checks for 
sales between spouses or siblings or parents, grandparents, uncles, 
aunts, nieces, nephews, and cousins. It does not require background 
checks for a transfer between friends and neighbors who talk to each 
other and decide to sell or give each other a firearm.
  The bill does not require background checks for temporary transfers 
of guns for hunting or target shooting. But it does require background 
checks for the kind of sales that can be easily exploited by people who 
intend to do harm: sales at gun shows and through online and print 
advertisement.
  I would hope Senators would agree with 90 percent of the people in 
this country: We need a strong background check system in order to keep 
guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. Why not try to plug the 
loopholes in the law that allow dangerous criminals to buy guns without 
background checks? It is a matter of common sense. If we agree that the 
background check system makes sense, why not make it more effective? 
What responsible gun owner objects to improving the background check 
system?
  I come from a State with a lot of gun owners, myself included. I have 
not

[[Page 5172]]

heard a single gun owner say, we should not have a background check 
apply to everybody just as it applies to them.
  At the first of our Judiciary Committee hearings of the year, the 
first of three hearings on gun violence proposals, I pointed out that 
Wayne LaPierre of the NRA testified in 1999 in favor of mandatory 
criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. He 
emphasized at that time the NRA supported closing loopholes in the 
background system by saying, ``No loopholes anywhere for anyone.''
  It is common sense. That is what we voted to do in 1999 and we should 
again, and this time we should get it enacted. I have said over and 
over again, do not filibuster or sloganeer. Vote. Vote yes; vote no. Do 
not vote maybe. No one is going to take away our second amendment 
rights. They are not at risk. But lives are at risk where responsible 
people fail to stand up for laws that will keep guns out of the hands 
of those who use them to commit crimes of violence.
  This is something we can come together and do to make America safer 
and more secure. Some have expressed frustration about the level of 
prosecutions under existing gun laws. And some have suggested that 
instead of making sensible changes to our public safety laws to prevent 
gun violence, Federal law enforcement officials should focus 
exclusively on existing laws. I share some of that frustration, but I 
do not agree it is a valid excuse for us to do nothing. Improvements in 
the enforcement of existing laws and efforts to give law enforcement 
officials better tools to do their jobs are not mutually exclusive; 
those efforts complement each other. A recent article in the Washington 
Times, certainly not considered a liberal paper, documented the gun 
prosecutions were in decline beginning in the Bush administration. They 
suggested having a Senate-confirmed Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would significantly help law 
enforcement. We need to get such a director. But let's not be 
distracted from what we can do to keep Americans safe by partisan 
attacks on this administration or the last administration.
  I also want to thank Senator Schumer for all his efforts to bring us 
to this point. I worked with him to make sure the legislation 
considered and voted on in the Judiciary Committee included a provision 
to improve the background checks system. He introduced a number of 
background check proposals. He reached across the aisle to try very 
hard to come to an agreement with Senator Coburn. His efforts helped 
pave the way for the agreement that Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey 
were able to reach.
  I have also been encouraging the junior Senator from West Virginia in 
his efforts. He has shown great leadership, sensitivity and 
perseverance. I commend Senator Toomey for his willingness to join in 
this legislative effort. Together they have done the Senate and the 
country a great service. At the outset of the Judiciary Committee's 
consideration of this issue, I encouraged Senators to bring forward 
their ideas, to debate that which they thought could make a difference, 
not just obstruct that which they opposed. I hope those who oppose the 
measure put forward by Senators Manchin and Toomey will seek to be part 
of this debate rather than simply try to silence it.
  Improving the background check system is a matter of common sense. 
Senators Manchin and Toomey have shown that it can be accomplished in a 
way that better protects our communities and fully respects our Second 
Amendment rights. I am pleased to support this bipartisan solution.
  Now, will everybody agree on this legislation? Perhaps not. But at 
least have the courage to vote yes or no. Vote yes or no. If you are 
going to vote maybe, that is voting for a filibuster. The American 
people want a little bit of courage on the part of 100 Senators.

                          ____________________