[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19933-19934]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   THE MOST EFFECTIVE DEFENSE AGAINST AN ARMED TERRORIST IS AN ARMED 
                                AMERICAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, ever since the terrorist attack in San 
Bernardino, leftist politicians have called for more restrictions on 
gun ownership for Americans. These are the same politicians who have 
worked for years to open our Nation to unprecedented and indiscriminate 
immigration from hotbeds of Islamic extremism.
  The most effective defense against an armed terrorist is an armed 
American. If one person in that room in San Bernardino had been able to 
return fire, many innocent lives would have been saved. But 
Californians are subject to the most restrictive gun laws in the 
country, making it very difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise 
their Second Amendment right to defend themselves. In a society denied 
its right of self-defense, the gunman is king.
  I repeat: the most effective defense against an armed terrorist is an 
armed American. Yet, the President and his followers seek to increase 
the number of terrorists entering through porous borders and lax 
immigration laws while, at the same time, seeking to decrease the 
number of armed Americans.
  Their latest ploy was announced by the President on Sunday and has 
been parroted by his Congressional allies this week, to the point of 
disrupting the work of the House.
  In the President's words, ``Congress should act to make sure no one 
on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun.'' He asked: What could possibly 
be the argument against that?
  Well, while serving in the California State Senate a decade ago, I 
discovered suddenly I couldn't check in for a flight. When I asked why, 
I was told I was on this government list. The experience was absolutely 
Kafkaesque.
  My first reaction was to ask, ``Well, why am I on that list?
  ``Well, we can't tell you.
  ``Well, what criteria do you use?
  ``That is classified.
  ``How do I get off that list?
  ``You can't.''
  I soon discovered that another California State Senator had been 
placed on that list. A few months later, U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy 
found himself on that list.
  I at least had the Office of the Sergeant at Arms of the State Senate 
to work through, something an ordinary American would not. Even so, it 
took months of working through that office with repeated petitions to 
the government to get my name removed from that list.
  The farce of it all was this: I was advised, in the meantime, just to 
fly under my middle name, which I did without incident.
  In my case, it turns out it was a case of mistaken identity with an 
IRA activist the British Government was mad at. This could happen to 
any American.
  The fine point of it is this: During this administration, the IRS has 
been used extensively to harass and intimidate ordinary Americans for 
exercising their First Amendment rights.
  What the President proposes is that, on the whim of any Federal 
bureaucrat, an American can be denied their Second Amendment rights as 
well with no opportunity to confront their accuser, contest the 
evidence, or avail themselves of any of their other due process rights 
under the Constitution.
  The concept that the left is seeking to instill in our law is that 
mere suspicion by a bureaucrat is sufficient to

[[Page 19934]]

deny law-abiding American citizens their constitutional rights under 
the law. Given the left's demonstrated hostility to freedom of speech 
and due process of law, it is not hard to see where this is leading us.
  I would support the President's proposal if it established a judicial 
process where an individual could only be placed on this list once he 
had been accorded his constitutional rights to be informed of the 
charges, to be given his day in court, to be accorded the right to 
confront his accuser and contest the evidence against him and submit 
himself to a decision by a jury of his peers. But that is the farthest 
thing from the left's agenda.
  The President's proposal would have done nothing to stop the carnage 
in San Bernardino, where the terrorists were not on any watch list. 
Indeed, one was admitted from Saudi Arabia after the vetting that the 
President keeps assuring us is rigorous and thorough. And several of 
the guns used in this massacre weren't even acquired directly but, 
rather, through a third party.
  Of course the American people don't want terrorists to have guns. The 
American people don't want terrorists in our country in the first 
place. But the President's policies have left our Nation's gate wide 
open while he seeks to take from Americans their means of self-defense.
  So I leave off as I began. The best defense against an armed 
terrorist is an armed American. That is what the Second Amendment is 
all about. It is an absolutely essential pillar of our security.
  Our Constitution is our best defense of all. It must be defended 
against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

                          ____________________