[Pages H9685-H9703]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2017
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 645, I call
up the bill (H.R. 38) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide
a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry
concealed firearms may also do so in the State, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, in lieu of
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, an amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
115-45 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 38
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Concealed Carry Reciprocity
Act of 2017''.
TITLE I--CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2017
SEC. 101. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED
FIREARMS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the
following:
``Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain
concealed firearms
``(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State
or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in
subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this
section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from
possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm,
who is carrying a valid identification document containing a
photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license
or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and
which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is
entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which
the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun
(other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been
shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in
any State that--
``(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may
apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm;
or
``(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms
by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
``(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or
limit the laws of any State that--
``(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or
restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their
property; or
``(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on
any State or local government property, installation,
building, base, or park.
``(c)(1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed
handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be
arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or
any rule or regulation of a State or any political
subdivision thereof related to the possession,
transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is
probable cause to believe that the person
[[Page H9686]]
is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section.
Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in
subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual
has a license or permit as required by this section.
``(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a
criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of
proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the
person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in
subsections (a) and (b).
``(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a
defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the
prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney's fee.
``(d)(1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege,
or immunity secured by this section, under color of any
statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State
or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in
any appropriate court against any other person, including a
State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person
to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other
appropriate relief.
``(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an
action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other
relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable
attorney's fee.
``(e) In subsection (a):
``(1) The term `identification document' means a document
made or issued by or under the authority of the United States
Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State
which, when completed with information concerning a
particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly
accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.
``(2) The term `handgun' includes any magazine for use in a
handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its
magazine.
``(f)(1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed
handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the
prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun.
``(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun
in a State under subsection (a) may do so in any of the
following areas in the State that are open to the public:
``(A) A unit of the National Park System.
``(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
``(C) Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management.
``(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
``(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
``(F) Land administered and managed by the Forest
Service.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 926C the following:
``926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.''.
(c) Severability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this title, if any provision of this section, or any
amendment made by this section, or the application of such
provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held
to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by
this section and the application of such provision or
amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be
affected thereby.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 102. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this title prohibits a law enforcement officer
with reasonable suspicion of a violation of any law from
conducting a brief investigative stop in accordance with the
Constitution of the United States.
SEC. 103. CERTAIN OFF-DUTY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND
RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ALLOWED TO
CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM, AND DISCHARGE A
FIREARM, IN A SCHOOL ZONE.
Section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(B)--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (vi); and
(B) by redesignating clause (vii) as clause (ix) and
inserting after clause (vi) the following:
``(vii) by an off-duty law enforcement officer who is a
qualified law enforcement officer (as defined in section
926B) and is authorized under such section to carry a
concealed firearm, if the firearm is concealed;
``(viii) by a qualified retired law enforcement officer (as
defined in section 926C) who is authorized under such section
to carry a concealed firearm, if the firearm is concealed;
or''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)(B)--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii);
(B) by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) by an off-duty law enforcement officer who is a
qualified law enforcement officer (as defined in section
926B) and is authorized under such section to carry a
concealed firearm; or
``(vi) by a qualified retired law enforcement officer (as
defined in section 926C) who is authorized under such section
to carry a concealed firearm.''.
SEC. 104. INTERSTATE CARRYING OF FIREARMS BY FEDERAL JUDGES.
(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code, as amended by section 101(a) of this Act, is amended by
inserting after section 926D the following:
``Sec. 926E. Interstate carrying of firearms by Federal
judges
``Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or
political subdivision thereof, a Federal judge may carry a
concealed firearm in any State if such judge is not
prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
chapter, as amended by section 101(b) of this Act, is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 926D the
following:
``926E. Interstate carrying of firearms by Federal judges.''.
TITLE II--FIX NICS ACT
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Fix NICS Act of 2017''.
SEC. 202. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND
AGENCIES.
Section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
(34 U.S.C. 40901) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)(1), by adding at the end the
following:
``(F) Semiannual certification and reporting.--
``(i) In general.--The head of each Federal department or
agency shall submit a semiannual written certification to the
Attorney General indicating whether the department or agency
is in compliance with the record submission requirements
under subparagraph (C).
``(ii) Submission dates.--The head of a Federal department
or agency shall submit a certification to the Attorney
General under clause (i)--
``(I) not later than July 31 of each year, which shall
address all relevant records, including those that have not
been transmitted to the Attorney General, in possession of
the department or agency during the period beginning on
January 1 of the year and ending on June 30 of the year; and
``(II) not later than January 31 of each year, which shall
address all relevant records, including those that have not
been transmitted to the Attorney General, in possession of
the department or agency during the period beginning on July
1 of the previous year and ending on December 31 of the
previous year.
``(iii) Contents.--A certification required under clause
(i) shall state, for the applicable period--
``(I) the total number of records of the Federal department
or agency demonstrating that a person falls within one of the
categories described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922
of title 18, United States Code;
``(II) for each category of records described in subclause
(I), the total number of records of the Federal department or
agency that have been provided to the Attorney General; and
``(III) the efforts of the Federal department or agency to
ensure complete and accurate reporting of relevant records,
including efforts to monitor compliance and correct any
reporting failures or inaccuracies.
``(G) Implementation plan.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this subparagraph, the head of each Federal
department or agency, in coordination with the Attorney
General, shall establish a plan to ensure maximum
coordination and automated reporting or making available of
records to the Attorney General as required under
subparagraph (C), and the verification of the accuracy of
those records, including the pre-validation of those records,
where appropriate, during a 4-year period specified in the
plan. The head of each Federal department or agency shall
update the plan biennially, to the extent necessary, based on
the most recent biennial assessment under subparagraph (K).
The records shall be limited to those of an individual
described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title
18, United States Code.
``(ii) Benchmark requirements.--Each plan established under
clause (i) shall include annual benchmarks to enable the
Attorney General to assess implementation of the plan,
including--
``(I) qualitative goals and quantitative measures;
``(II) measures to monitor internal compliance, including
any reporting failures and inaccuracies;
``(III) a needs assessment, including estimated compliance
costs; and
``(IV) an estimated date by which the Federal department or
agency will fully comply with record submission requirements
under subparagraph (C).
``(iii) Compliance determination.--Not later than the end
of each fiscal year beginning after the date of the
establishment of a plan under clause (i), the Attorney
General shall determine whether the applicable Federal
department or agency has achieved substantial compliance with
the benchmarks included in the plan.
``(H) Accountability.--The Attorney General shall publish,
including on the website of the Department of Justice, and
submit to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on the
Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives a semiannual report that discloses--
``(i) the name of each Federal department or agency that
has failed to submit a required certification under
subparagraph (F);
``(ii) the name of each Federal department or agency that
has submitted a required certification under subparagraph
(F), but failed to certify compliance with the record
submission requirements under subparagraph (C);
``(iii) the name of each Federal department or agency that
has failed to submit an implementation plan under
subparagraph (G);
``(iv) the name of each Federal department or agency that
is not in substantial compliance with an implementation plan
under subparagraph (G);
``(v) a detailed summary of the data, broken down by
department or agency, contained in the certifications
submitted under subparagraph (F);
[[Page H9687]]
``(vi) a detailed summary of the contents and status,
broken down by department or agency, of the implementation
plans established under subparagraph (G); and
``(vii) the reasons for which the Attorney General has
determined that a Federal department or agency is not in
substantial compliance with an implementation plan
established under subparagraph (G).
``(I) Noncompliance penalties.--For each of fiscal years
2019 through 2022, each political appointee of a Federal
department or agency that has failed to certify compliance
with the record submission requirements under subparagraph
(C), and is not in substantial compliance with an
implementation plan established under subparagraph (G), shall
not be eligible for the receipt of bonus pay, excluding
overtime pay, until the department or agency--
``(i) certifies compliance with the record submission
requirements under subparagraph (C); or
``(ii) achieves substantial compliance with an
implementation plan established under subparagraph (G).
``(J) Technical assistance.--The Attorney General may use
funds made available for the national instant criminal
background check system established under subsection (b) to
provide technical assistance to a Federal department or
agency, at the request of the department or agency, in order
to help the department or agency comply with the record
submission requirements under subparagraph (C).
``(K) Biennial assessment.--Every 2 years, the Attorney
General shall assess the extent to which the actions taken
under the title II of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of
2017 have resulted in improvements in the system established
under this section.
``(L) Application to federal courts.--For purposes of this
paragraph--
``(i) the terms `department or agency of the United States'
and `Federal department or agency' include a Federal court;
and
``(ii) the Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts shall perform, for a Federal court, the
functions assigned to the head of a department or agency.'';
and
(2) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following:
``For purposes of the preceding sentence, not later than 60
days after the date on which the Attorney General receives
such information, the Attorney General shall determine
whether or not the prospective transferee is the subject of
an erroneous record and remove any records that are
determined to be erroneous. In addition to any funds made
available under subsection (k), the Attorney General may use
such sums as are necessary and otherwise available for the
salaries and expenses of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
to comply with this subsection.''.
SEC. 203. NICS ACT RECORD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) Requirements to Obtain Waiver.--Section 102 of the NICS
Improvement Amendments Act of 2007(34 U.S.C. 40912) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), in the first sentence--
(A) by striking ``the Crime Identification Technology Act
of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 14601)'' and inserting ``section 102 of
the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 (34 U.S.C.
40301)''; and
(B) by inserting ``is in compliance with an implementation
plan established under subsection (b) or'' before ``provides
at least 90 percent of the information described in
subsection (c)''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by inserting ``or has
established an implementation plan under section 107'' after
``the Attorney General''.
(b) Implementation Assistance to States.--Section 103 of
the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (34 U.S.C. 40913)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting before the semicolon
at the end the following: ``, including through increased
efforts to pre-validate the contents of those records to
expedite eligibility determinations'';
(2) in subsection (e), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Domestic abuse and violence prevention initiative.--
``(A) Establishment.--For each of fiscal years 2018 through
2022, the Attorney General shall create a priority area under
the NICS Act Record Improvement Program (commonly known as
`NARIP') for a Domestic Abuse and Violence Prevention
Initiative that emphasizes the need for grantees to identify
and upload all felony conviction records and domestic
violence records.
``(B) Funding.--The Attorney General--
``(i) may use not more than 50 percent of the amounts made
available under section 207 of the Concealed Carry
Reciprocity Act of 2017 for each of fiscal years 2018 through
2022 to carry out the initiative described in subparagraph
(A); and
``(ii) shall give a funding preference under NARIP to
States that--
``(I) have established an implementation plan under section
107; and
``(II) will use amounts made available under this
subparagraph to improve efforts to identify and upload all
felony conviction records and domestic violence records
described in clauses (i), (v), and (vi) of section
102(b)(1)(C) by not later than September 30, 2022.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Technical Assistance.--The Attorney General shall
direct the Office of Justice Programs, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to--
``(1) assist States that are not currently eligible for
grants under this section to achieve compliance with all
eligibility requirements; and
``(2) provide technical assistance and training services to
grantees under this section.''.
SEC. 204. NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) State Grant Program for Criminal Justice
Identification, Information, and Communication.--Section 102
of the Crime Identification Technology Act of 1998 (34 U.S.C.
40301) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as
subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) identification of all individuals who have been
convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding 1 year'';
(2) in subsection (b)(6)--
(A) by striking ``(18 U.S.C. 922 note)'' and inserting
``(34 U.S.C. 40901(b))''; and
(B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``, including through increased efforts to pre-
validate the contents of felony conviction records and
domestic violence records to expedite eligibility
determinations, and measures and resources necessary to
establish and achieve compliance with an implementation plan
under section 107 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of
2007''; and
(3) in subsection (d), by inserting after ``unless'' the
following: ``the State has achieved compliance with an
implementation plan under section 107 of the NICS Improvement
Amendments Act of 2007 or''.
(b) Grants for the Improvement of Criminal Records.--
Section 106(b)(1) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention
Act (34 U.S.C. 40302(1)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``as of the date of enactment of this Act''
and inserting ``, as of the date of enactment of the
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,''; and
(B) by striking ``files,'' and inserting the following:
``files and that will utilize funding under this subsection
to prioritize the identification and transmittal of felony
conviction records and domestic violence records,'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(3) in subparagraph (C)--
(A) by striking ``upon establishment of the national
system,''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following--
``(D) to establish and achieve compliance with an
implementation plan under section 107 of the NICS Improvement
Amendments Act of 2007.''.
SEC. 205. IMPROVING INFORMATION SHARING WITH THE STATES.
(a) In General.--Title I of the NICS Improvement Amendments
Act of 2007 (34 U.S. 40911 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 107. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, the
Attorney General, in coordination with the States and Indian
tribal governments, shall establish, for each State or Indian
tribal government, a plan to ensure maximum coordination and
automation of the reporting or making available of
appropriate records to the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System established under section 103 of the
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901) and
the verification of the accuracy of those records during a 4-
year period specified in the plan, and shall update the plan
biennially, to the extent necessary, based on the most recent
biennial assessment under subsection (f). The records shall
be limited to those of an individual described in subsection
(g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code
``(b) Benchmark Requirements.--Each plan established under
this section shall include annual benchmarks to enable the
Attorney General to assess the implementation of the plan,
including--
``(1) qualitative goals and quantitative measures; and
``(2) a needs assessment, including estimated compliance
costs.
``(c) Compliance Determination.--Not later than the end of
each fiscal year beginning after the date of the
establishment of an implementation plan under this section,
the Attorney General shall determine whether each State or
Indian tribal government has achieved substantial compliance
with the benchmarks included in the plan.
``(d) Accountability.--The Attorney General--
``(1) shall disclose and publish, including on the website
of the Department of Justice--
``(A) the name of each State or Indian tribal government
that received a determination of failure to achieve
substantial compliance with an implementation plan under
subsection (c) for the preceding fiscal year; and
``(B) a description of the reasons for which the Attorney
General has determined that the State or Indian tribal
government is not in substantial compliance with the
implementation plan, including, to the greatest extent
possible, a description of the types and amounts of records
that have not been submitted; and
``(2) if a State or Indian tribal government described in
paragraph (1) subsequently receives a determination of
substantial compliance, shall--
``(A) immediately correct the applicable record; and
``(B) not later than 3 days after the determination, remove
the record from the website of the Department of Justice and
any other location where the record was published.
``(e) Incentives.--For each of fiscal years 2018 through
2022, the Attorney General shall give affirmative preference
to all Bureau of Justice Assistance discretionary grant
applications of a State or Indian tribal government that
received
[[Page H9688]]
a determination of substantial compliance under subsection
(c) for the fiscal year in which the grant was solicited.
``(f) Biennial Assessment.--Every 2 years, the Attorney
General shall assess the extent to which the actions taken
under title II of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017
have resulted in improvements in the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System established under section
103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C.
40903).
``SEC. 108. NOTIFICATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF
PROHIBITED PURCHASE OF A FIREARM.
``(a) In General.--In the case of a background check
conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System pursuant to the request of a licensed importer,
licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer of firearms (as
such terms are defined in section 921 of title 18, United
States Code), which background check determines that the
receipt of a firearm by a person would violate subsection (g)
or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, and
such determination is made after 3 business days have elapsed
since the licensee contacted the System and a firearm has
been transferred to that person, the System shall notify the
law enforcement agencies described in subsection (b).
``(b) Law Enforcement Agencies Described.--The law
enforcement agencies described in this subsection are the law
enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction over the location
from which the licensee contacted the system and the law
enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction over the location
of the residence of the person for which the background check
was conducted, as follows:
``(1) The field office of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
``(2) The local law enforcement agency.
``(3) The State law enforcement agency.''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (Public
Law 110-180; 121 Stat. 2559) is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 106 the following:
``Sec. 107. Implementation plan.
``Sec. 108. Notification to law enforcement agencies of prohibited
purchase of a firearm.''.
SEC. 206. ATTORNEY GENERAL REPORT ON USE OF BUMP STOCKS IN
CRIME.
(a) In General.--Using amounts made available for research,
evaluation, or statistical purposes, within 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General
shall prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate a written report that--
(1) specifies the number of instances in which a bump stock
has been used in the commission of a crime in the United
States;
(2) specifies the types of firearms with which a bump stock
has been so used; and
(3) contains the opinion of the Attorney General as to
whether subparagraphs (B)(i) and (C)(i) of section 924(c)(1)
of title 18, United States Code, apply to all instances in
which a bump stock has been used in the commission of a crime
of violence in the United States.
(b) Definition of Bump Stock.--In this section, the term
``bump stock'' means a device that--
(1) attaches to a semiautomatic rifle (as defined in
section 921(a)(28) of title 18, United States Code);
(2) is designed and intended to repeatedly activate the
trigger without the deliberate and volitional act of the user
pulling the trigger each time the firearm is fired; and
(3) functions by continuous forward pressure applied to the
rifle's fore end in conjunction with a linear forward and
backward sliding motion of the mechanism utilizing the recoil
energy when the rifle is discharged.
SEC. 207. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 2022 to
carry out, in accordance with the NICS Act Record Improvement
Program and the National Criminal History Improvement
Program, the activities under--
(1) section 102 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of
2007;
(2) section 103 of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of
2007;
(3) section 102 of the Crime Identification Technology Act
of 1998; and
(4) section 106(b) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention
Act.
(b) Additional Authorizations.--Section 1001(a) of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C.
10261(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``$33,000,000'' and inserting
``$31,000,000'';
(B) by striking ``1994 and 1995'' and inserting ``2018
through 2022''; and
(C) by inserting ``, in addition to any amounts otherwise
made available for research, evaluation or statistical
purposes in a fiscal year'' before the period; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``$33,000,000'' and inserting
``$27,000,000'';
(B) by striking ``1994 and 1995'' and inserting ``2018
through 2022''; and
(C) by inserting ``, in addition to any amounts otherwise
made available for research, evaluation or statistical
purposes in a fiscal year'' before the period.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 38.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry
Reciprocity Act of 2017.
Mr. Speaker, throughout my career in elected office, I have believed
in and adhered to two fundamental principles regarding firearms policy:
first, the right guaranteed to law-abiding Americans by the Second
Amendment must be aggressively protected and preserved; second, the
laws we have on the books need to be enforced to the fullest extent
possible. The bipartisan bill before us today does both.
H.R. 38 ensures that law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment right
does not end when they cross State lines. The bill allows law-abiding
gun owners with valid State-issued concealed carry firearm permits or
those who live in so-called constitutional carry States to carry a
concealed firearm in any other State that also allows concealed carry.
We know that citizens who carry a concealed firearm are not only
better prepared to act in their own self-defense, but also in the
defense of others. Take, for instance, an incident that occurred just
last November on a highway in Florida. Lee County Sheriff's Deputy Dean
Bardes had just concluded a high-speed chase just off Interstate 75. As
Deputy Bardes approached to apprehend the suspect, the suspect, Edward
Strother, violently attacked Deputy Bardes.
A witness on the scene told reporters that the attacker ``just
started punching him and hitting and hitting and hitting. I was afraid
for the police officer. I thought he was going to kill him.''
Fortunately for Deputy Bardes, Ashad Russell, a Florida concealed
carry permit holder, was also watching the attack unfold. Mr. Russell
pulled his gun and approached the altercation. He told Strother he
would shoot him if he didn't stop beating the deputy. The State
Attorney's Office said Strother ignored Russell's commands to stop
beating the deputy, so Russell fired his gun three times, hitting and
fatally wounding the assailant. Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott has
hailed Russell as a hero.
Importantly, this bill also contains the Fix NICS Act of 2017. This
is a bipartisan and bicameral measure. The Fix NICS Act takes steps to
ensure that State and Federal agencies enter all relevant records into
the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This bill
will help ensure people who are legally prohibited from having guns,
like those with violent felony convictions, do not obtain them.
The shooting at Virginia Tech and the church shootings in Charleston,
South Carolina, and Sutherland Springs, Texas, are tragic reminders of
what can happen when all relevant records are not entered into the
system.
Our NICS system is only as good as the information within it. This
important piece of legislation will ensure that more of the information
already required to be uploaded to NICS under current law is actually
placed in the NICS system.
Taken together, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and the Fix NICS
Act preserve and protect the right guaranteed to us by the Second
Amendment and ensure that those prohibited by existing law from
receiving a firearm are prevented from doing so.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation.
I want to thank the lead sponsor, Mr. Hudson of North Carolina, for
his hard work on this bill. I would also like to thank the authors of
the Fix NICS provisions, Mr. Culberson and Mr. Cuellar, for their
important contributions to the legislation before us today.
[[Page H9689]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Concealed Carry
Reciprocity Act. This bill would not protect us from gun violence, but
it would make us far less safe.
Under current law, each State makes its own determination about who
may carry a concealed firearm in public, including deciding which other
States' concealed carry permits to recognize. This bill would
eviscerate the core public safety determinations that each State makes
concerning the concealed carrying of guns in public based on the unique
circumstances of each State and the desires of its citizens. In fact,
the standards and requirements adopted in the States vary dramatically:
Thirty-one States and D.C. require gun safety training to carry
concealed guns in public, and 21 of those States require live-fire
training; 27 States and the District of Columbia prohibit individuals
convicted of misdemeanor crimes of violence from concealed carry; 28
States and D.C. prohibit convicted stalkers from carrying concealed
guns; 34 States and D.C. prohibit those under 21 years of age from
carrying concealed guns. Many States prohibit gun possession and
concealed carry by abusive dating partners, exceeding Federal
protections against abusive spouses.
All of these States would have their carefully considered laws
governing concealed carry overridden by this bill.
The obvious solution to the varying State laws is to continue to do
what is currently done by many States, which is to choose which other
State permits they will recognize. Some States, including my State of
New York, have chosen not to recognize permits issued by any other
State. Most States, however, have chosen to recognize permits from at
least some other States, basing the choice on the strength and
standards employed by the other States.
{time} 1445
We should not disregard these determinations, which is what this bill
would do. Instead, this bill would say that every State must honor the
concealed carry permit of every other State. About 10 States don't have
any requirements and issue a concealed carry permit upon request to
anyone.
What this bill would do, in effect, is to say that if New York or
Illinois have strict requirements for concealed carry, if someone comes
in from a State that doesn't, they have to let that person have
concealed carry in their State. In effect, it uses the power of the
Federal Government to import the laws of one State and make them
enforceable in the other State.
In addition, I am deeply disappointed that the version of this bill
before us today includes the bipartisan Fix NICS Act, a measure that
should be enacted as a stand-alone bill without delay, and that was
reported as a separate bill by the Judiciary Committee.
That bill would take steps to address shortcomings with the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System, or what we often call the
NICS.
As the recent mass shooting at the church in Sutherland Springs,
Texas, illustrates, we must do more to ensure all relevant prohibiting
records are submitted to the databases that comprise the NICS. No one
should pass a firearm background check that he or she should have
failed simply because their record of a felony conviction, or domestic
violence record, or some other prohibition under Federal law was not
included in the system.
There is broad bipartisan support for the Fix NICS bill here in the
House and in the Senate. That proposal, which would actually save
lives, should not be tethered to the forced concealed carry reciprocity
provisions of this bill, which would only serve to endanger our
citizens.
The answer to our national problem of gun violence is not that we
need more people carrying concealed firearms on our streets. More than
33,000 Americans lose their lives to gun violence every year, while, in
some other countries, this figure barely exceeds 100. In 2011, the
United Kingdom had 146 deaths due to gun violence; Denmark, 71;
Portugal, 142; Japan, just 30; the United States, over 30,000.
A study in The American Journal of Medicine found that, compared to
22 other high-income countries, the gun-related murder rate in the
United States is 25 times higher. The common factor in all of these
other countries is the lack of such easy availability of guns. Our
country, however, is awash in guns, and we have the shameful death toll
to show for it. Sadly, this bill will only increase it.
We must change our approach to gun violence and adopt meaningful
legislation that strengthens our gun laws instead of weakening them;
and we must not undermine the efforts of States to defend their
citizens against these arms.
Unfortunately, the dangers posed by the concealed carry reciprocity
portion of this bill greatly outweigh the benefits of the NICS
improvements; therefore, I oppose H.R. 38, and urge my colleagues to
reject it today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), the lead sponsor of the legislation.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a story. It is a story about
an African-American single mother, two kids, living in south Philly.
After twice being the victim of muggings, she decides to go out and
legally purchase a firearm to protect herself, gets trained with her
weapon, and applies for a concealed carry permit.
Sometime thereafter, she crossed the State line into New Jersey and,
at a routine traffic stop, did exactly as she was trained; handed her
driver's license and her concealed carry permit to the police officer
and let him know that she had a pistol in her purse.
What she didn't know is that the State of New Jersey doesn't
recognize the concealed carry permits of their neighbor in
Pennsylvania. And so this poor single mother, who has never had a brush
with the law, spent almost 50 days in jail and was looking at 10 years
in prison.
Are you serious? We have to make sure that never happens again.
The other side today is going to argue that we are violating States'
rights with this legislation; but Article IV, section 1, the full faith
and credit clause of the Constitution, says very clearly that every
State should give the full faith and credit to the judicial proceedings
and documents of every other State, and that Congress has a
responsibility to determine how those documents will be recognized.
That is why a driver's license is recognized in every State. That is
why, if I get married in North Carolina but I move to Arizona, I am not
a single man again. They recognize that marriage. That is why divorce
decrees are recognized in every State. The concealed carry permit
should be recognized the same way.
But this is not trampling States' rights, because States can still
determine what can be carried, where it can be carried. They can set
any kind of limits they want about how weapons are carried in their
municipalities or their States.
For example, if you visit the State of New York, they have a limit on
the size of a magazine on a pistol. You have got to follow that law. If
they want to set restrictions about places where you can't carry, even
with this legislation, that law would have to be followed. The States
retain this right, just like a driver's license.
The other side is also going to stand up and claim all kinds of
doomsday scenarios about how we are going to increase crime; we are
going to increase the number of weapons out there; we are going to turn
the cities into the Wild West.
I find it ironic that we are being lectured to by people from big
cities with a lot of gun control measures but have some of the worst
crime in the Nation. They are worried about people coming from other
places where we don't have crime. I think that is ironic.
But the truth is, over half the States already recognize permits from
every other State; 19 States, in fact, already do this. States and
municipalities, as I mentioned, retain the right to restrict where guns
are carried in their communities, even under this legislation.
And if you look at the empirical evidence, places where you have
concealed carry, even constitutional carry, when you instituted this
right, violent crime went down. Gun crime went down. You have seen less
crime, not more crime.
[[Page H9690]]
There was actually a study done in Florida and Texas, and it showed
that off-duty police officers commit crimes more than concealed carry
permit holders. Think about that. Police officers don't commit crimes
very often, but even they commit crimes more than concealed carry
permit holders. These are not the people we are worried about. These
are not the violent criminals that we are worried about in our cities.
This is a commonsense measure that upholds our constitutional right.
It makes sure that a law-abiding citizen, trying to do the right thing,
doesn't become a criminal simply because they cross that line.
So for every freedom-loving American who exercises their Second
Amendment right, today is your day. To the 73 percent of Americans who
support concealed carry, today is your day. To the 15 million concealed
carry permit holders out there, today is your day. And finally, to the
single mothers out there who just want to protect themselves and their
families, today is your day.
I thank the chairman for his leadership on this. I ask my colleagues
to join me in supporting this commonsense legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the
Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me say that the problems that my
good friend just mentioned on the floor can be solved by real, sensible
gun safety legislation. Unfortunately, H.R. 38 is not that, and it is
not that because it has ignored the pleas of law enforcement, and it
has ignored the rational addition of amendments that would save lives.
H.R. 38 is dangerous, it is reckless, and it is secretly packaged as
a fix to gun violence, but, instead, it is laced with lethal elements
of catastrophic proportion.
Then, in the midnight hour, it matches the NICS Fix, dealing with the
background checks, with the concealed carry reciprocity. That is
patently unfair, Mr. Speaker.
Then it would not allow reasonable amendments, exposing victims of
domestic violence, an amendment that I had, it will expose them,
victims of domestic violence, to stalkers, and those who have been
involved in domestic violence to gun violence or death.
It will entice those who perpetrate hate crimes. It will add to the
current alarming death rate. Unfortunately, where we could have fixed
the NICS, it does not do that.
556 women have been murdered this year alone by intimate partners
with firearms. My amendment would have made this bill safer on the
concealed carry bill. Didn't want to have it. Fourteen other sensible
amendments were blocked.
4.5 million American women alive today have been threatened by
abusers.
Hate crimes, those worshippers in Charleston, South Carolina, were
killed by a person who came there with hate. My amendment dealing with
not allowing someone convicted of a hate crime--even though they say
that that is the Federal law, why not have it in this underlying bill
where so many people are killed?
Let me give you an example. Under the Brady Campaign, 114,994
Americans are killed by guns. They include those in Las Vegas; they
include those at the Pulse nightclub; in Charleston; those who marched
in Charlottesville, with all the violence that they had; and of course,
Sandy Hook. Seventeen thousand children are gunned down by guns.
The laws of different States, 12 States, have an open carry law with
no rules. That means that if you are in Washington, D.C., where heads
of state and other dignitaries come, then recklessly someone can come
on the streets.
Do we even listen to police officers? The Major Chiefs Association
has indicated that they are opposed to H.R. 38 because it will require
those making legitimate legal stops as law enforcement officers,
seeking to come home to their families, being subjected to individuals
whose documents they may not know are credible, or whether they are
fraudulent or whether, in fact, these individuals legitimately should
have a gun.
I can't understand why this is not understood. So let me just say
that it is usually understood that we respect the constitutionality of
States. This is a bad bill. It ignores sovereignty, and we should vote
it down because too many people are murdered by guns without safety
regulations.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 38, the ``Concealed to
Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017''.
I oppose the bill for the following reasons:
H.R. 38 is dangerous, reckless and secretly packaged as a fix to gun
violence, but instead, is laced with lethal elements of catastrophic
proportion.
It will expose victims of domestic violence or stalking to gun
violence or death.
It will entice those who perpetrate hate crimes.
It will add to the current alarming death rate.
The majority has elected to combine this dangerous measure with a
more sensible and bipartisan measure, the Fix NICS Act, which we all
supported as a stand-alone bill at markup.
This trickery tactic is both disappointing and deadly, of which,
neither approach is welcome, for this reckless effort will negate any
protections offered by the Fix NICS Act.
My Amendments would have remedied these glaring defects in H.R. 38,
which is a recipe for disaster because it authorizes anyone who is
allowed by one state to carry a concealed handgun to do so in any other
state, even if other states have higher standards than the state where
permit was granted.
This bill would endanger many more lives when dealing with domestic
partners by exposing victims to gun violence.
Approximately, 556 women have been murdered this year alone by
intimate partners with firearms, as statistics show that guns are the
weapon of choice for domestic violence homicides.
My domestic violence amendment is an important public safety measure.
Had it been made in order, it would have provided that States not be
required to allow an individual to carry where such person is convicted
of an offense of domestic violence or stalking as defined under the
law.
Despite this sensible measure, my amendments along with 14 other
germane democratic amendments were all blocked by the majority.
A 2016 meta-analysis found that approximately 4.5 million American
women alive today have been threatened by abusers with firearms; of
those, one million had either been shot or shot at by their abusers.
Stalking is also a strong indicator of lethality, with one study of
female murder victims in ten cities finding that 76% of women who were
murdered by an intimate partner were stalked the previous year.
My second amendment would have prohibited any person convicted of a
hate crime, as defined under section 249 of title 18 United States
Code, or any substantially similar offense under the law of any State,
from carrying under this bill.
We all remember the vicious church shooting in Charleston, South
Carolina where a white supremacist opened fire in a historic black
church, killing nine people, including a pastor, during a prayer
meeting.
Again, recently, in Charlottesville, VA, white nationalists invoked
violence during a march by plowing a car into a group of anti-
protesters, killing 32 year old Heather Heyer of Charlottesville.
This event prompted Attorney General Sessions to call the fatal
attack ``domestic terrorism'' and said you can be sure we will charge
and advance the investigation toward the most serious of charges that
can be brought.
Imagine if this killer from Ohio was allowed to cross state lines
freely at that time under this bill with a gun; the additional loss of
life on that day could have been catastrophic.
New analysis of National Crime Victimization Survey data by the
Center for American Progress reveals that between 2010 and 2014,
roughly 43,000 hate crimes were committed in the United States that
involved the use or threat of a gun.
Under federal law and the law in most states, individuals who have
been convicted of hate crimes remain free to buy and possess guns. And
now, under this bill, they can take their guns with them to inflict
mayhem beyond their home states.
Hate-motivated individuals such as violent extremists and hate
criminals often use guns as a tool to terrorize, threaten and
intimidate members of historically vulnerable or marginalized
communities. My amendment therefore, was a sensible and practical
measure.
Mass shootings and carnage-filled classrooms, churches, workplace,
concerts and clubs should not be the new normal because Congress can
and should do better.
Every day on average, 315 people are shot, of which 93 die from gun
violence, daily. And of the 315 shot, 46 are children and teens between
the age of 0-19 and at least 7 of our children die daily from gun
violence.
[[Page H9691]]
Every year on average, 114,994 people are shot, of which 33,880
people die from gun violence and of those shot, 17,012 of those victims
are children and teens. Therefore, we lose at least 2,647 of our
children a year to senseless gun violence.
These numbers are alarming and we should be devoting our efforts to
saving lives, not opening up the flood gate to more carnage by snuffing
innocent lives in passing H.R. 38.
This bill will amplify tragedies such as Sandy Hook Elementary,
Charleston, SC, Florida's Pulse night club, San Bernardino, Las Vegas
bump stocks killings, Texas recent church massacre, and the countless
lives lost on our streets across this country daily.
Although the NRA argues that the United States is a dangerous place
and that owning and carrying a gun is the only way to protect oneself
and one's family, there are over 30,000 dead.
Removing safeguards intended to protect the public against potential
harm or deadly force by private individuals jeopardizes universally
recognized human rights--including the right to life.
H.R. 38 prohibits Congress' ability to address gun violence in a
constructive and realistic manner? Adding more guns to our streets and
loosening existing laws is extremely dangerous and counterproductive to
ensuring public safety.
Disguising the danger in this bill, by wrapping it in the cloth of
H.R. 4477, a more sensible measure, does not negate the toxicity level
of H.R. 38.
In response to the TX recent church shooting, my amendment
strengthened H.R. 4477 by requiring DoD to conduct a more comprehensive
review of the procedures used by each branch of the Armed Forces to
ensure that the Department is in substantial compliance with the DoD
instruction 5505.11 entitled, ``Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition
Report Submission Requirements'', dated December 1, 1998. But again,
these amendments were blocked.
Unlike H.R. 4477, the Fix NICS Act, a bipartisan measure and good
first step, which aims to improve key elements in the submission of
information by federal and state agencies to the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and which I supported, H.R. 38
as is and combined is lethal.
For the reasons stated above, I oppose this Rule and the underlying
bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I include
in the Record an article entitled, `` `Good Samaritan' Kills Active
Shooter in Texas Sports Bar,'' in which a shooter with two guns and two
knives entered a sports bar and was shot by an individual that the
police labeled a Good Samaritan who happened to be eating at the
restaurant with his wife. He was a concealed carry permit holder. He
told his wife to get down on the ground, and then he shot the
assailant.
[From nbcnews.com, May 4, 2017]
`Good Samaritan' Kills Active Shooter in Texas Sports Bar: Police
(By Phil McCausland)
A ``good Samaritan'' with a gun killed an active shooter
who may have been gearing up for a deadly rampage at a Texas
sports bar Wednesday night, police said.
When 48-year-old James Jones walked inside the Zona
Caliente Sports Bar, started yelling and then allegedly shot
and killed Cesar Perez--a 37-year-old restaurant manager
who'd attempted to calm him down--Arlington police said
witnesses were afraid they would be next.
In addition to the gun used to kill Perez, police say Jones
had another semiautomatic pistol and two knives on him. The
serial number on the second gun had been scratched off, and
Jones did not have a gun license, police said.
``He definitely had the capacity, if he wanted, to commit
further violence and potentially kill other patrons in the
business,'' Arlington Police Lieutenant Chris Cook told NBC
News, adding that it did not appear that the shooter knew his
victim.
An armed ``good Samaritan''--as the Arlington Police
labeled him--happened to be eating at the restaurant with his
wife. A concealed carry permit holder, he told her to get
down on the ground and then shot Jones in the back.
``I don't think the shooter even knew where the rounds were
coming from because he started shooting at the front door,''
Cook said, who described the scene as ``chaotic.''
Police reviewed video surveillance and pieced together the
incident via witness interviews, but it remains unclear how
many shots were fired by either individual. Police were
looking into Jones' background to see whether he suffered
from any mental illnesses and were awaiting test results to
find out if he was under the influence.
The man who took down Jones wished to maintain his
anonymity, police said, noting that he felt overwhelmed but
relieved that he prevented further violence.
``We're thankful that the good `Samaritan' acted quickly
and decisively to end the threat,'' Cook said. ``We never
recommend people get involved. That's a personal decision
that a citizen has to make.''
Use of force and firearms expert Emanuel Kapelsohn told NBC
News that, from his understanding, the man who took down the
shooter reacted appropriately.
``I think it's to be applauded,'' he said. ``Not everybody
in the world ought to own a gun. Not everybody in the world
ought to carry a gun. Not everyone in the world ought to
engage an armed criminal where innocent people could be
potentially injured.''
``But this good Samaritan obviously had the ability to do
what he did,'' Kapelsohn added. ``Who knows how many people
would be dead if he had not acted?''
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Crime, Terrorism,
Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee of the House
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that H.R. 38, as
amended, includes the Fix NICS Act. I have long supported the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.
NICS is about saving lives and protecting people from harm by
preventing guns from falling into the wrong hands. It does this without
interfering in the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.
I was the original cosponsor of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention
Act of 1993 and worked diligently for its passage. I strongly supported
this bill because it makes sense to prevent convicted felons and
individuals judged to be mentally ill from obtaining guns.
At the time of negotiations, I insisted on the inclusion of the NICS
program. Under this system, firearms dealers use the FBI's NICS system
to cross-reference with a list of known convicted felons, drug users,
illegal aliens, and those convicted of domestic violence.
As I have stated many times, the NICS system is only as good as the
records that are put into it. Too often, people who otherwise would not
pass a background check can slip through the cracks and buy guns.
After the recent shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, the U.S. Air
Force disclosed that it had failed to report the gunman's history of
domestic assault to the database, which should have prevented him from
purchasing a firearm in the first place.
This legislation will provide a much-needed push to speed
implementation of the NICS system used in conducting instant background
checks prior to gun purchases. At the Federal level, it would require
Federal agency cooperation and provide relevant records to the Attorney
General for inclusion into the NICS. It holds Federal agencies
accountable if they fail to upload relevant records to the background
check system through public reporting and prohibiting bonus pay for
political appointees.
At the State level, it will incentivize them to make sure that their
reporting is up to date by giving Federal grant preferences to States
which comply.
{time} 1500
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. This bill is not about expanding
background checks. This is about ensuring that the existing law is
working. There is strong bipartisan support for improving what has
become the systemic problem of missing information in the database.
Accurate reporting is essential to ensuring that the system works as
intended.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. JACKSON Lee asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article by Mark Kelly
entitled ``Good Guys With Guns Can Be Dangerous, Too. Don't Gut Conceal
Carry Laws. Why is Congress about to Vote to Loosen Gun Laws Again;'' a
letter from Major Cities Chiefs Association opposing H.R. 38; a letter
from the chief of police from the City of Houston; and, finally, a
report from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic
Violence.
[[Page H9692]]
`Good Guys With Guns' Can Be Dangerous, Too. Don't Gut Concealed Carry
Laws
why is congress about to vote to loosen gun laws again?
(By Mark Kelly)
That day in Tucson, amid a gun tragedy, one of the heroes
almost got shot.
It was Saturday, Jan. 8, 2011, and a mentally ill young man
who'd gotten his hand on a gun opened fire on my wife, then-
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), and her constituents at an
event in a Safeway parking lot. He shot my wife in the head
at close range, injured 12 others and took the lives of six
people. One victim was a 9-year-old girl.
After Gabby's would-be assassin dropped the full magazine
as he sought to reload his gun and continue his rampage,
people tackled him, kicked his gun away, subdued him as they
waited for law enforcement to arrive and brought an end to
the chaos. They were heroes.
The chaos nearly continued, though. Because the man who
murdered those innocent people wasn't the only one there with
a loaded, concealed gun.
Joe Zamudio was shopping at a drugstore nearby when he
heard the shots. Allowed to carry a concealed weapon under
Arizona law, Zamudio recognized the sound of gunfire and
rushed to the scene with his gun in his jacket pocket, his
hand on his weapon and ready to fire. But then Zamudio--a
good guy trying to do the right thing--almost shot another
good guy.
As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun.
Zamudio confronted him: ``Drop it, drop it!'' he yelled.
But that man with a gun was a good guy, too. He was one of
the heroes who had wrestled the shooter to the ground. And he
was moments away from being shot for the wrong reason.
To his credit, Zamudio held his fire--just barely. As he
recounted to reporters later, ``It was a matter of seconds. .
. . I was really lucky. . . . I've never been in the military
or had any professional training. I just reacted.''
The situation that played out in the Safeway parking lot
that day shows the potential for tragedy and bloodshed when
untrained people carrying loaded guns react to a crisis. Even
with the best intentions, an armed person without the
extensive firearms training that is required to respond under
pressure in a crisis will risk making the situation worse,
not better.
But this week, as we approach the seventh anniversary of
the tragedy in Tucson and the fifth anniversary of the
tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School--and after two of the
five deadliest mass shootings in modern history happened in
the last two months--Congress is working hard to pass one of
the big-ticket items on the National Rifle Association's
wishlist, a bill that weakens our gun laws and poses serious
threats to public safety.
The House of Representatives is on the verge of voting to
allow people permitted to carry concealed weapons to carry
them into any other state regardless of what that state's law
on such guns is. That would make it harder for law
enforcement to do their job and allow all permit holders,
even if they don't have a single shred of training, to carry
loaded, hidden guns on every street in our country.
Right now, each state has the right to determine the extent
to which it will recognize the concealed carry laws of other
states. Some states have strong laws, preventing dangerous
people like domestic abusers and convicted stalkers from
obtaining concealed carry permits and requiring training and
a thorough evaluation as part of the process. In other
states, concealed carry laws have much lower standards. The
12 states with the weakest laws, permitless carry states, do
not even require a permit. That means a resident of those
states may carry loaded, concealed guns in public spaces
without ever having passed a background check.
The bill before Congress would allow people who have a
permit issued by any state--including permitless carry
states--to carry loaded, concealed handguns in any other
state that allows concealed carry, even though they might not
meet local public safety standards. This would mean an 18-
year-old high school student from West Virginia could legally
carry a concealed firearm in New York City, where residents
must be 21 to even own a handgun.
And what would it mean for law enforcement? Nothing good.
The bill would impose a threat of personal litigation on all
law enforcement officers by allowing anyone whose ability to
carry a concealed gun is mistakenly questioned by law
enforcement to personally sue the officer. This bill would
also effectively require them to be an expert on nationwide
gun laws as they work to determine if it's legal for someone
from out of state to be carrying a gun in whatever state they
might be visiting. Just as concerning, it will mean that more
law enforcement officers will have to confront more people
with guns. And think back to the tragedy in Tucson: When law
enforcement officers arrive at a crime scene where multiple
people are holding guns, how do they even know who the good
guy is?
We need politicians to show courage and listen to the
American people, who want stronger laws to make them safer,
not giveaways to gun lobbyists that threaten the safety of
our communities. And that's exactly what this irresponsible
bill would do.
As members of Congress consider this bill, they have to ask
themselves if they want to be remembered as voting to help
the Washington gun lobby instead of supporting law
enforcement and public safety. And they should know that
their constituents are watching their decision closely.
____
Major Cities Chiefs Association,
November 2, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan: On behalf of the Major Cities Chiefs,
representing the Nation's largest metropolitan law
enforcement agencies in the country, we are writing to voice
our strong opposition to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act
of 2017, HR 38. Because we are responsible for public safety
in jurisdictions across the Nation, we recognize that this
legislation would be an enormous mistake.
This measure is both impractical and contrary to the rights
of States. Moreover, it raises Constitutional questions about
the authority of Congress to direct State officers.
Concealed weapon permit laws have been tailored to the
needs of regions and local communities over a period of many
years. An attempt by Congress to preempt these State laws
forces States to accept the lowest minimum standard for
concealed carry across the Nation, and creates a
contradiction between the standards required for State
residents and State visitors.
The thousands of local permit formats would make
enforcement impossible, because police officers would not be
able to determine the validity of a permit issued in another
State or locality. It would be impossible for law enforcement
to distinguish true permit carriers from criminals and
illegal guns.
We are confident that members of Congress will respect the
Constitutional sovereignty of the States and will not act
with disregard for the many reasonable and prudent laws
already in place across the Nation.
Sincerely,
J. Thomas Manger,
Chief of Police, Montgomery County Police Department,
President.
____
City of Houston,
Houston Police Department,
Houston, TX, November 29, 2017.
Hon. Chuck Grassley,
Chairman,
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Ranking Member, Committee of the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington DC.
Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: As the
Chief of Police in Houston, I see first-hand the bloodshed
and death toll from gun violence. Recent horrible events in
Texas and Nevada serve as grim reminders that we have not
done enough to prevent gun violence in America. While I am
sorry I cannot attend your planned hearing, I serve as the
First Vice President of Major Cities Chiefs and ask that you
also enter this letter into the record.
The mass shooting in Texas is an ugly and tragic example of
the need to strengthen our system of background checks.
That's why I am supporting the measure introduced by Senator
Cornyn and I urge the Committee to move his bill forward. The
proposed legislation seeks to make current law work better by
strengthening procedures. But we should not stop there as
much more can be done to prevent the public from gun
violence. This measure alone does not go far enough to stop
what recently happened in Texas and the many, many senseless
mass shootings that preceded our own tragedy.
Universal Background Check: The mass shooting in Texas
represents a renewed call for the Universal Background Check
that Congress has failed to adopt in the past. Much has been
said about how the Texas gunman would have been precluded
from the store purchase if the background system had worked
correctly. But what would have stopped him from buying the
same weapons at the next gun show? It's a disservice to the
public to conduct background checks only in some cases, but
not for all of them.
``Bump Stocks'': Another common-sense measure is a ban on
``bump stocks'' and similar accessories that replicate fully
automatic weapons fire. Such features result in a number of
shots fired that causes the carnage we witnessed in Las
Vegas. Like other law enforcement officials, I have studied
the Las Vegas slaughter and concluded that there is no
reasonable sporting or hunting purpose served by deadly
devices that simulate military weapons capabilities. I was
seated next to the ATF Director at a recent meeting of Major
Cities Chiefs when he advised the Chiefs that new legislation
will be required.
Concealed Weapons: Each State has carefully crafted its own
laws relating to concealed weapons. While Congress has
heretofore respected the Constitutional sovereignty of the
States, there is legislation now pending that would undermine
the authority of State laws relating to carrying of weapons.
We strongly urge Congress to reject the misguided and
impractical proposal for reciprocity. As police officers
could not be expected to recognize legitimate or forged
permits from thousands of jurisdictions, it would be
impossible to determine which persons are authorized to carry
a concealed weapon.
Silencers: Legislation to deregulate silencers is ill-
advised because it would further threaten public safety.
These devices were
[[Page H9693]]
invented for killing and stealth. Once widespread, hunters
would be unable to hear nearby gunfire and thus be
endangered. Gunshot detection systems in urban areas would be
thwarted. Worst of all, the proposed legislation would permit
criminals to purchase and possess silencers without any
screening requirements. There is simply no legitimate
justification for a measure that would further endanger the
public.
Our Duty to Protect: Like those of us who wear a badge,
members of Congress share our solemn duty to protect the
public. The recent tragedies in Texas and Nevada should be
recognized by Congress as cries for help from past and future
innocent victims of gun violence. Chiefs of Police and
Sheriffs join these victims in asking you to act now to
prevent more death and bloodshed. We turn to you for courage
and leadership to consider multiple steps and measures to
curb the ongoing threat of gun violence in America.
Sincerely,
Art Acevedo,
Chief of Police.
____
National Task Force to End
Sexual & Domestic Violence,
December 1, 2017.
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: As we
enter the winter holiday season, we grieve for the
approximately 556 women who will not celebrate with their
families--the 556 women who have been murdered this year by
intimate partners with firearms. As a country, we can and
must do more to prevent the daily mass shootings that plague
our nation, most of which are related to family violence.
Accordingly, we, the member organizations of the National
Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence (NTF),
comprising national organizations working to end gender-based
violence and representing hundreds of member programs and
hundreds of thousands of advocates and survivors, write to
you today to oppose the package containing both the Concealed
Carry Reciprocity (CCR) Act of 2017, H.R. 38, and the Fix
NICS Act of 2017, H.R.4434.
While the Fix NICS Act of 2017, H.R.4434, will protect
victims of domestic violence by ensuring domestic violence
records are properly and expeditiously submitted to the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, H.R. 38, undermines the
safety of victims of domestic violence, dating violence and
stalking by destabilizing protections for victims of abuse
and allowing domestic violence offenders to follow their
victims across state lines with loaded, concealed firearms.
This combined measure is incredibly dangerous and will negate
any protections offered by the Fix NICS Act.
Firearms are regularly used as tools of power and control.
A 2016 meta-analysis of existing literature found that
approximately 4.5 million American women alive today have
been threatened by abusers with firearms; of those, one
million had either been shot or shot at by their abusers.
Guns are also the weapon of choice for domestic violence
homicides. An abuser's mere access to a firearm increases the
risk of intimate partner homicide of women by five times.
Stalking is also a strong indicator of lethality, with one
study of female murder victims in ten cities finding that 76%
of women who were murdered by an intimate partner were
stalked the previous year. Lawmakers have enacted strong,
commonsense protections to prevent domestic violence
homicides in states and localities across the nation and such
protections must not be undermined by federally mandating
concealed carry reciprocity.
States and Reciprocity Agreements: Currently, each state
determines who can legally carry concealed, loaded firearms
in public. Many states have enacted strong laws to protect
victims and survivors from gun-enabled abuse beyond the vital
but limited protection federal law provides. States enter
into reciprocity agreements at their own discretion. The
proposal before the Committee would take away this local
control by requiring every state to recognize every other
state's concealed weapons permits, thereby undermining
states' authority to make their own decisions as to what
measures will provide the best protection for their citizens.
Victim Relocation: Often, victims of domestic violence,
dating violence and stalking relocate across state lines to
escape their abusers and seek refuge in states with stronger
firearms protections. H.R. 38 would require states with
strong protections for victims of abuse to accept the permits
of states with weaker protections and allow domestic violence
offenders to travel across state lines with loaded, concealed
firearms. Domestic violence offenders could shop around for
``out of state'' permits, which are granted by ten states to
non-residents, even if they do not meet the requirements to
obtain a permit in their home state. Even if domestic abusers
are prohibited from possessing firearms from their state of
residence, they could easily obtain ``out of state'' permits
and cross state lines to threaten, harass and harm their
victims with firearms.
Law Enforcement and Background Checks: The CCR Act assumes
that law enforcement need only look at an individual's out-
of-state concealed carry license to verify their eligibility
to carry a firearm. Twelve states no longer require permits
to carry loaded, concealed firearms; individuals from those
states would not be able to produce a state-issued photo ID
license to prove their eligibility to carry a concealed
firearm, as required by the bills. The bill also assumes that
federal firearms prohibitors apply to all persons asserting
the right to concealed carry reciprocity. However, many
states do not run background checks when issuing concealed
permits, so law enforcement in the travel state is unable to
ascertain whether a federal or state prohibitor impairs the
traveler's concealed carry permit or firearm possession. Even
when a background check is required before a permit is
issued, prohibited abusers often erroneously pass background
checks, because the federal background check databases are
missing most records relating to federal and many states'
domestic violence prohibitors.
The Fix NICS Act of 2017 (H.R.4434): This bipartisan,
bicameral bill reauthorizes NCHIP, requires all federal
agencies and states to design implementation plans to
increase submission of records into NICS, holds states and
federal agencies responsible if they do not meet the
benchmarks established in their implementation plans, and
creates a Domestic Abuse and Violence Prevention Initiative
to focus state efforts specifically on domestic violence
records. This bill is supported not only by the domestic
violence community but also such disparate entities as the
NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and a number of
gun violence prevention organizations.
Although gaps in reporting of records span a range of
firearms prohibitors, the gap in reporting of domestic
violence records is particularly notable. Approximately
700,000 protective orders reside in state databases that are
not in any federal database, and countless more protective
orders are issued at the local level but never entered into
state databases. Similarly, there are significant gaps in the
number of misdemeanor domestic violence convictions and the
records submitted to NICS. Poor record keeping often leads to
domestic abusers erroneously passing background checks or to
`default proceed', in which a background check cannot be
completed within seventy-two hours, and a sale is allowed to
proceed before the FBI has made a determination about the
potential buyer's ability to legally purchase or possess
firearms. In 2013 and 2014, a plurality (approximately 40%)
of cases referred by the FBI to the ATF for firearms
retrieval after a default proceed were related to a domestic
violence prohibitor. An unknown number of prohibited abusers
wrongly passed background checks altogether.
Simply put, we cannot support any bill that puts the lives
of victims of domestic violence, dating violence, and
stalking at risk. Any bill that includes the Concealed Carry
Reciprocity Act, H.R.38, imperils the lives of victims,
survivors, their children, their families, their friends and
their communities. We continue to support The Fix NICS Act of
2017, H.R.4434, as a standalone bill because it saves lives.
On behalf of victims of domestic violence, dating violence
and stalking, we urge you to reconsider combining these
bills. These two bills cannot be supported as a package and
the CCR Act threatens to erase any progress that could be
made by the Fix NICS Act.
Sincerely,
The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
the so-called Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. It is outrageous that
today, of all days, 1 week before the 5-year anniversary of the
horrific murder of 20 schoolchildren and 6 educators in my district of
Newtown, 2 months after the slaughter of 50 Americans watching a
concert, that we are about to act on a bill to put more guns in the
hands of more dangerous people.
Rather than helping raise the standards nationally for gun safety,
this bill would override and lower most States' concealed carry laws,
making it easier for domestic violence abusers, stalkers, and violent
criminals to carry across State lines loaded hidden guns. This bill
should be called the ``Act to Carry Any Gun Anywhere Anytime by
Anyone.''
The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is an outrage and an insult to
the families in Newtown and to the hundreds of families who have lost
loved ones to gun violence who are gathered here today at the Capitol
for the fifth annual Vigil to End Gun Violence.
In the 5 years since Sandy Hook, this is the very first bill we have
been allowed to vote on in this Chamber, and it is a reckless giveaway
to the moneyed gun interests.
Mr. Speaker, since 2012, gun violence has killed over 170,000
Americans. It is time for this House to truly honor the victims of gun
violence and their families with action instead of caving in to the gun
lobby yet again.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this dangerous
bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
[[Page H9694]]
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, history is the great educator. We
remember in American history the War of Independence started when the
British tried to take away the firearms of Americans, and we had the
Battles of Lexington and Concord. That revolution was successful
because Americans were able to be armed.
The Texas War of Independence started when the Mexican Government
tried to take away the firearms of Texans. That started in Gonzales,
Texas, and it was successful and we became an independent country.
The Second Amendment is a constitutional right that Americans have.
My friends on the other side don't like the Second Amendment. They wish
it wasn't there. They do everything in their power to restrict the
privilege and the right that we have under the Second Amendment, and we
get it because of our history, to protect us from government and also
for self-defense.
My friends talk about gun violence. They have got to remember that
gun violence happens many times where people are disarmed, and it
usually takes a gun to stop that gun, just like it did at the church in
Texas.
In another situation, if I were to drive my Jeep to California and I
get stopped by the California Highway Patrol, which maybe would occur,
I would show them my Texas driver's license, and then they would let me
drive, even though the laws in California are different on a driver's
license.
Second, the registration of my Jeep in Texas would pass in
California, even though if I had to get it done in California, it
probably wouldn't pass. But they recognize that because we have laws
that recognize that.
My marriage license would be accepted as well.
The right to bear arms, the right to have a concealed carry weapon,
is based on the Second Amendment of the Constitution. All this law does
is allow us to exercise that right in every State.
And that is just the way it is.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Nadler for yielding to
me.
Mr. Speaker, that is just the way it is. Since the start of 2017,
more than 14,340 people have been killed by gun violence in the United
States, more than any other country on Earth. That is just the way it
is.
More than 29,150 have been wounded. More than 680 of those have been
children.
In October, 58 people were killed and 515 wounded in Las Vegas in the
worst mass shooting in our Nation's history.
But we don't have a bill on the floor to prevent the creation of
machine guns, which are illegal, by bump stocks.
Just 5 weeks later, a gunman entered a church in Sutherland Springs,
Texas, and killed 26 worshipers, while wounding 20.
The majority's response?
Bring to the floor a bill that makes America less safe, more replete
with people carrying and concealing weapons in our communities. This
bill says: If you want to carry a concealed weapon in a State that
doesn't allow it constitutionally, no problem. Get your concealed carry
license in another State that does.
In other words, every State, no matter their own judgment, talk about
States' rights, no matter their own judgment, must be subjected to the
policies of the least protective State in the Nation.
Instead of addressing the very serious problem of rampant gun
violence in a constructive way, the Republican majority is bringing to
the floor a bill that makes it easier to hide dangerous weapons in
public.
Newtown, Aurora, Orlando, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, and
community after community after community. What will it take for this
Congress to act? What will it take to face this challenge instead of
ignoring it? How many more will not live to see the new year or begin
it with debilitating injuries they will carry for the rest of their
lives? How many times will we have a moment of silence and a year of no
action?
Mr. Speaker, defeat this bill. Its rational provision of NICS, making
sure people report, does not justify the danger it expands. Support the
rights of States to protect their residents from hidden firearms. Do
not ignore the crisis that confronts our country. Have a moment of
action, a moment of legislating more safety, not less; not simply a few
seconds of silence to lament the loss of life, whether it be in Las
Vegas or Orlando or in our own communities. Defeat this bill. Come back
and do some positive, constructive work that makes America safe again.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to include in
the Record a letter signed by 23 of those States' attorneys general who
say, in part, in this letter: ``Strong evidence indicates that
concealed carry permit holders actually deter and reduce crime.'' This
is taking action by passing this legislation.
Attorney General of Missouri,
Jefferson City, MO, December 1, 2017.
Re Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S.
446) and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R.
38).
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Chuck Schumer,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressional Leaders: As the chief legal officers of
our States, we, the undersigned 23 state Attorneys General,
write in support of the Constitutional Concealed Carry
Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S. 446) and the Concealed Carry
Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38). We share a strong interest
in the protection of our citizens' Second Amendment right to
keep and bear arms, and we are committed to supporting
federal and state policies to preserve that constitutional
right. These bills, if enacted, would eliminate significant
obstacles to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms
for millions of Americans in every State.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides an
individual right to own and carry a firearm for self-defense.
The Amendment states that ``[a] well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' U.S.
Const. amend. II. As the Supreme Court recognized in District
of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), the Second
Amendment ``guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and
carry weapons in case of confrontation.'' Indeed,
``individual self-defense is `the central component' of the
Second Amendment right.'' McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561
U.S. 742, 767 (2010) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599).
The core interest protected by this right is self-defense
by law-abiding citizens. This right therefore extends to
weapons ``in common use'' and ``typically possessed by law-
abiding citizens for lawful purposes.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at
624-25, 627 (quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174,
179 (1939)).
The Second Amendment historically has guaranteed the right
to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. In
Heller, the Supreme Court relied on the preeminent authority
on English law for the founding generation, William
Blackstone, who explained that the right to self-defense,
codified by the framers in the Second Amendment, was an
``individual right protecting against both public and private
violence.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at 594 (citations omitted). As
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have written, `` `[s]elf-defense
has to take place wherever the person happens to be,' and in
some circumstances a person may be more vulnerable in a
public place than in his own house.'' Peruta v. California,
137 S. Ct. 1995, 1998-99 (2017) (Thomas, J., and Gorsuch, J.,
dissenting from the denial of certiorari) (quoting Eugene
Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for
Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda,
56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1515 (2009)).
To be sure, the right to carry firearms for self-defense is
not unlimited, and the Supreme Court has stated that its
decisions do not cast doubt on the ``longstanding
prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the
mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in
sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial
sale of arms.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27. But these
exceptions all assume that the right to carry a weapon in
self-defense applies in public places generally.
The Second Amendment, moreover, applies to both the Federal
Government and the States. The Second Amendment is a right
``fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,'' and so it
applies not just to the Federal Government but also to the
States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767; see also Caetano v.
Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1027 (2016) (per curiam).
Nevertheless, some activist courts have held that the
Second Amendment has no application at all outside the home,
and thus have upheld state laws banning any firearm ownership
outside the home. See, e.g., Peruta v. California, 137 S. Ct.
1995, 1997, 1999 (2017) (Thomas, J. and Gorsuch, J.,
dissenting from
[[Page H9695]]
the denial of certiorari) (collecting cases); e.g., Williams
v. State, 10 A.3d 1167, 1177 (Md. 2011); Mack v. United
States, 6 A.3d 1224, 1236 (D.C. 2010). Further, ten states
refuse to recognize any out-of-state concealed carry permits,
and many more refuse to recognize out-of-state concealed
carry permits unless certain conditions are met.
The citizen interest in self-defense, supported and
protected by the Second Amendment, is called into serious
question by such blanket refusals to permit carrying firearms
in self-defense outside the home or to allow non-resident
visitors to carry concealed weapons. Because some States
refuse to give the Second Amendment its full import, Congress
should enact concealed-carry reciprocity legislation, to help
implement and enforce the constitutional right to self-
defense for millions of law-abiding Americans across the
country.
The exercise of Congress's power is particularly warranted
in this case because the States that refuse to allow law-
abiding, non-resident visitors to carry concealed weapons
place their occupants in greater danger--not less--from gun
violence. These States leave citizens without any real option
for self-defense, and so it is not surprising that they have
been unable to show that their regulations reduce crime.
Authorizing permit holders to carry across state lines will
not result in an increased risk of crime. Concealed carry
permit holders are among the most law-abiding members of
society, and those States that allow for reciprocal
concealed-carry permits have not encountered any significant
safety issues. In Texas, for example, state data on permit
holders shows that, compared to the general public, they are
``ten times less likely to commit a crime, eleven times less
likely to commit an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon,
and seven times less likely to commit deadly conduct with a
firearm.'' Kevin Ballard, Peruta v. County of San Diego: An
Individual Right to Self-Defense Outside the Home and the
Application of Strict Scrutiny to Second Amendment
Challenges, 47 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 25, 59 (2017).
Further, strong evidence indicates that concealed-carry
permit holders actually deter and reduce crime. Those who
engage in lawful and licensed concealed carry are not only
less likely to be involved in criminal activity themselves,
but their presence also deters others from engaging in
violent crime. See John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime
(University of Chicago Press, 3d ed. 2010). County-level data
for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, the period in
which many concealed-carry laws took effect, shows annual
reductions in murder rates between 1.5 percent and 2.3
percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry law
was in effect, and the total economic benefit from reduced
crimes usually ranges between approximately $2 billion and $3
billion per year. Florenz Plassmann & John Whitley,
Confirming ``More Guns, Less Crime,'' 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1313
(2003). ``Violent crime falls after right-to-carry laws are
adopted, with bigger drops the longer the right-to-carry laws
are in effect.'' John R. Lott, Jr., What a Balancing Test
Will Show for Right-to-Carry Laws, 71 Md. L. Rev. 1205, 1212
(2012).
Our experience as attorneys general further reinforces this
data. Law-abiding individuals who choose to exercise their
constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense
promote public safety. Our states have chosen to respect the
rights of residents and non-residents alike to carry arms for
their defense, and we ask Congress to protect the same rights
of our law-abiding residents as they travel throughout the
United States.
States should not be able to deny citizens of other States
the basic constitutional right to self-defense. We thus urge
Congress to enact legislation such as the Constitutional
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S. 446) or the
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38). These
bills aim to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to
carry a concealed handgun. They do not allow for carrying
firearms by felons, those involuntarily committed to mental
health facilities, and other persons prohibited by federal
law from possessing or receiving firearms. And these bills
would not prevent States from allowing governmental and
private entities to preclude concealed carry on their own
property.
As the Supreme Court held in McDonald, it is
``unmistakably'' true that ``the Second Amendment right to
keep and bear arms'' is ``fundamental to our scheme of
ordered liberty'' and ``deeply rooted in this Nation's
history and tradition.'' McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767-68.
Congress should act to safeguard and implement this deeply
rooted right for those traveling across state lines.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this legislation.
As the chief legal and law enforcement officers of our
respective States, we urge Congress to pass this important
legislation implementing one of the most basic American
freedoms, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Very truly yours,
Joshua D. Hawley, Missouri Attorney General; Steve
Marshall, Alabama Attorney General; Mark Brnovich, Arizona
Attorney General; Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas Attorney General;
Pamela Jo Bondi, Florida Attorney General; Chris Carr,
Georgia Attorney General; Lawrence Wasden, Idaho Attorney
General; Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Indiana Attorney General; Derek
Schmidt, Kansas Attorney General; Jeff Landry, Louisiana
Attorney General; Bill Schuette, Michigan Attorney General;
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General.
Doug Peterson, Nebraska Attorney General; Adam Paul Laxalt,
Nevada Attorney General; Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota
Attorney General; Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General; Alan
Wilson, South Carolina Attorney General; Marty J. Jackley,
South Dakota Attorney General; Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney
General; Sean Reyes, Utah Attorney General; Patrick Morrisey,
West Virginia Attorney General; Brad D. Schimel, Wisconsin
Attorney General; Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 38, the
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.
Mr. Speaker, our Founders laid out certain rights in our
Constitution, not to empower the government, but to empower the people.
Certainly among the most fundamental of those rights we have as
Americans is to keep and bear arms.
H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, simply ensures
all law-abiding citizens who meet the requirements to obtain concealed
carry permits in their home State can exercise the right to protect
themselves in any State, provided that they obey the local concealed
carry laws.
Mr. Speaker, some opponents of this bill claim that we are somehow
making it easier for dangerous unqualified individuals to obtain and
carry guns. That is absolutely not true.
If a citizen is currently prohibited from purchasing or possessing a
firearm, this bill does nothing to change that.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, others will tell you that we are
making it harder for law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second
Amendment right. That is not true either.
H.R. 38 does nothing to infringe upon anyone's right to keep and bear
arms. The bill simply ensures that our current National Instant
Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is enforced and working
properly.
Those of us who respect the Second Amendment and dedicate our careers
to defending it will always fight to protect this fundamental right
from those who would erode it.
Mr. Speaker, we also have a responsibility to uphold and enforce our
current laws to ensure dangerous people can't obtain weapons. In fact,
it is precisely because we want to preserve our Second Amendment right
that we must ensure our criminal background check system works
properly.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill in order to
ensure that those who obtain a concealed carry permit in one State are
able to enjoy the freedom in any State and to make sure our current
background check system is working the way it was intended to work.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, firstly, the NRA put a bulletin out to urge
people to vote for this. They said: ``We must ensure that antigun
jurisdictions do not harass travelers.''
Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of this bill from the NRA, that nine
antigun jurisdictions, State legislatures that have restrictive gun
laws, cannot harass travelers, cannot see that their State has the same
laws that their citizens have from people out of State.
When my friends on the other side talk about being concerned about
the Second Amendment and dedicating their lives to it and seeing that
irresponsible people don't get guns, when we tried to bring a no fly,
no buy law, they weren't for it. They talked about due process.
But have they brought a due process bill to the floor for people who
are on the no-fly list?
No.
People who are on Social Security who can't manage their own affairs,
they passed a law that said they should get guns when they couldn't
before. That is not in keeping with what they are saying.
This bill violates States' rights, puts guns in the hands of people
that States don't want them to have. There are seven States that don't
allow people under 21, unless they are in the military, to have a gun
permit. This Federal law would override those seven States.
[[Page H9696]]
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad law. It is the NRA's law. We should have
had amendments considered in committee, but we didn't because the NRA
didn't want them.
{time} 1515
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to support the Concealed
Carry Reciprocity Act, which will allow a person who is licensed in one
State to carry their firearm to carry it in other States. It works just
like your driver's license. My Texas driver's license lets me drive in
Virginia; it lets me drive in Florida; it lets me drive in California.
When I was a child growing up in Texas, my family taught me the
importance of marksmanship, gun safety, and the Second Amendment. And I
have long said that, when it comes to reducing violence, it is the
individual, not the weapon, that we need to be focused on.
This bill helps ensure an American's right to carry is not infringed
when crossing State lines, enhancing public safety. In fact, as the
chairman stated earlier here today, a peer-reviewed study shows that
States with more restrictive concealed carry laws had higher gun-
related murder rates. That is why we need an armed citizenry to protect
ourselves and each other.
As we saw in the terrible Texas church shooting in Sutherland Springs
just recently, the death toll could have been much higher had not an
armed citizen been there to confront the gunman. There are those who
insist the bill will arm the criminals, but those claims are far from
true, as gun laws restricting criminals from access to weapons are
already there in their home States. They are going to remain
undisturbed.
I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and the Constitution,
as I suspect most of you all are, Mr. Speaker, and I believe gun
control is hitting what you aim at and nothing else.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Deutch).
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it has been almost 5 years to the day that 20 6- and 7-
year-old babies were slaughtered in Newtown. It has been about a year-
and-a-half since 49 people were killed in my home State of Florida, 58
more being injured. In October, 59 people were killed and 500 injured
at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas. And in November, 26 people were
killed and injured as they worshiped in Sutherland Springs, Texas. The
response to all of this tragedy is a bill to make it easier for people
to carry concealed weapons in every corner of this country.
I don't know whose idea--other than the gun corporations, I don't
know whose idea it was that this would be the way that we honor the
memories of those who have been killed, that instead of commonsense gun
safety legislation that the overwhelming majority of people in this
country support, we get a bill to make it possible to carry concealed
weapons in every State, in every corner of this country.
When my friends on the other side say this doesn't override any laws,
that is absolutely untrue. In States that have State laws that govern
where you can and can't carry a gun, this bill overrides that and says
you can bring any gun into the State, whatever your regulations are
about what you can carry.
This is a bill that doesn't make us safer. It doesn't make us
stronger. But make no mistake, it makes the bottom line, the profits of
the gun makers in this country, a little bit healthier.
As we enter the Christmas season and we think about the 20 6- and 7-
year-old kids whose lives were taken 5 years ago today, whose parents,
whose families suffer every day with that loss, whose kids aren't there
to receive Christmas presents, I ask my friends on the other side: Why
is it that we respond to that by giving this enormous Christmas gift to
the NRA?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to include in
the Record two articles, one from Tennessee and one from Florida, in
which concealed carry permit holders stopped dead in their tracks
people who were going to commit murder.
[From www.wsmv.com, Oct. 8, 2017]
Usher Being Called ``Hero'' for Helping to Stop Antioch Church Shooter
(By Edward Burch)
Antioch, TN.--Robert Caleb Engle is being hailed as a hero
after helping to stop the accused gunman during the shooting
at Burnette Chapel Church of Christ in Antioch on Sunday.
According to police and witnesses at the scene, Engle, who
is an usher at the church, confronted the accused shooter,
Emanuel Kidega Samson. Engle was then pistol-whipped by
Samson. The two got into a scuffle before Samson shot himself
in the chest.
Engle, who has a carry permit, went out to his car to get a
gun, despite suffering a head injury.
Engle then went back inside the church to confront Samson
and held him at gunpoint until authorities arrived.
Engle, 22, declined an on-camera interview but did send a
statement.
When complimented about his heroism, Engle said, ``I do not
want to be labeled a hero. The real heroes are the police,
first responders, medical staff and doctors who have helped
me and everyone affected.''
``I've been going to this church my whole life,'' Engle
said ``I would have never, ever thought something like this
would have happened.''
``(He's) just an outstanding young man, even before
today,'' said Tammy Adcock, one of Engle's neighbors. ``Today
just proved his character.''
Engle also asked for prayers for not just the victims, but
for the shooter and the shooter's family.
``They are hurting as well,'' Engle said.
Engle and 64-year-old Catherine Dickerson were taken to
Skyline Medical Center with non-life-threatening injuries.
Both Engle and Dickerson have since been released from the
hospital.
____
[From Florida Today, Nov. 27, 2017]
Schlenker Shooting: Rockledge Gunman Recovering, Worked at Brevard
Elementary School
(By J.D. Gallop)
The 28-year-old man suspected of carrying out a shooting at
a Rockledge auto shop last week that left one person dead and
another paralyzed, also worked as a part-time custodian at an
elementary school, authorities said.
Brevard County Public School officials confirmed that
Robert Lorenzo Bailey Jr. was employed with the district
since 2014, working at Lewis Carroll Elementary on Merritt
Island.
``He's a part-time custodian,'' said Jennifer Wolfinger,
spokeswoman for the school district, adding that Bailey
remains on the payroll. Officials are reviewing his
employment records.
Bailey wandered onto the Schlenker Automotive property on
Friday, and using a .40-caliber handgun, started firing on
workers, killing 50-year-old Schlenker employee Roger Lee
Smith, Rockledge police said. Smith had stepped into the
parking lot after he heard a shot that paralyzed a 25-year-
old, unidentified co-worker, according to police. Police have
not released the identity.
Two other workers--both concealed weapons permit holders--
confronted the gunman and engaged in a shootout that left the
suspect wounded. Bailey continues to recover at Holmes
Regional Medical Center in Melbourne.
The shooting--which happened the day after Thanksgiving--
left family members of the victim, a husband, father and
grandfather, devastated.
``He would do anything . . . anything for anybody. It hurts
that somebody would hurt him,'' said Bnickcole Smith, a 27-
year-old niece of the victim. ``That man took from us a
longtime husband, a father figure and a grandfather. He loved
being with his family and was such a fun, outgoing person.
Personally, it's just destroyed me.''
Bailey, known to friends as a bouncer and a regular in the
Cocoa Village pub scene, did not have any connections to the
autoshop, police said. Police have not yet confirmed any
criminal or medical history that might give insight into a
possible motive.
Others who knew Bailey, including a manager at the Dog and
Bone British Pub, said he seemed to be acting differently
lately. The manager said Bailey was fired from his job at the
pub after Bailey confronted a patron. Another manager
suggested Bailey see a doctor after Bailey aired thoughts
that he believed the patron had a gun and was attempting to
kill him.
``You could tell he had gone through some type of stress or
disorder. He kept to himself,'' said 26-year-old Paul Lyal,
who learned about the shooting late Sunday. Lyal said he met
Bailey at the Dog and Bone British Pub several years ago.
``Sometimes he would be quiet, other times out laughing
with everyone. He would even do karaoke or just go upstairs
and dance for hours,'' Lyal recalled. ``I'm just shocked like
everyone else.''
Rockledge detectives did not comment on Bailey's injuries
or surgery over the weekend to treat his wounds.
Lou Schlenker, owner of the business that has operated in
Rockledge for 36 years, released a statement to Florida Today
on Sunday evening:
``In this difficult time of mourning the loss of Roger and
the severe injuries that (our other employee) has sustained,
we would like
[[Page H9697]]
to thank all of the community for the overwhelming support
and prayers we have received. We know there will be a long
healing process ahead of us but we want to reassure everyone
that this is an organization full of dedicated, courageous,
and heroic individuals serving this community,'' the
statement read.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know why Democrats are so afraid to allow people
to exercise the full extent of their constitutional rights. In my
State, we have got 1.7 million concealed carry permit holders.
Concealed carry permit holders in Florida are eight times less likely
to commit crimes than members of law enforcement.
I think the American people see that, if they had their way, we would
take the bad acts of people who break the law and we would use that as
an excuse to deprive law-abiding people of the full exercise of their
rights.
So I rise in support of the Constitution and to correct a common
mistake. The rights that are enumerated in the Constitution are not
granted to the American people by government. These are God-given
rights, and it is the government's duty to protect them for all
citizens.
For too long, the government has failed to protect the Constitution
and has stripped law-abiding citizens of their freedom. States
recognize driver's licenses from other States, but nowhere in the
Constitution are they mentioned; yet States routinely deny carry
permits from other States, including neighboring States, even though
the Constitution explicitly states that the right of people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed.
Mr. Hudson's good bill restores constitutional liberty. I am proud to
join in sponsoring this legislation and to stand with the Constitution
and against those who wish to dismantle it.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to remember the oath that they
swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, and I would encourage them
to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 38.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Cicilline) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. CICILLINE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle
made a number of arguments about how, if everyone has a concealed
weapon, America will be safer.
Mr. Speaker, I have two studies here which directly rebut that:
A 2017 Stanford University study found that in States that adopted
the most permissive concealed carry laws, violent crime is 13 to 15
percent higher than it would have been had the State retained a more
restrictive law;
A 2017 study by researchers at Boston University found that States
with shall-issue laws had a 10.6 percent higher handgun homicide rate,
consistent with the results of the Stanford study.
Both of those empirical studies disprove the claim that we make
America safer if everyone carries a hidden, loaded firearm.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Crowley), the distinguished chairman of the Democratic
Caucus.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I must have missed something in my religious training. Were there 11
Commandments by God? I know about the first 10, but I missed that 11th
one that thou shall have the ability to bear arms. I missed that one,
that God-given right.
Was it a God-given right for someone to take that God-given right and
execute 58 people at a concert? Was that a God-given right?
Mr. Speaker, the American people have spoken with nearly a unanimous
voice. They want Congress to keep their families safe by passing
commonsense gun safety legislation, legislation that will keep guns out
of the hands of criminals; protections that will keep those who want to
cause terror in our churches, in our schools, at concerts, and in our
communities from getting those firearms.
The bill before us does the exact opposite. It would force States
like New York to weaken their own gun safety laws and allow concealed
carry. It puts families like yours and mine at risk. And for what? To
appease the NRA? That is shameful.
In the 66 days since the Las Vegas massacre, Congress has done
nothing, absolutely nothing, to address the clear loopholes in our laws
that allowed one man to kill and injure so many.
It has been 66 days since numerous Republicans denounced the bump
stocks and promised a fix, only to turn around and do this bill. At a
time when we have seen one horrific mass shooting after another,
Republicans are forcing through a bill that will put each and every
American in harm's way. What is more, this egregious proposal comes
days before the fifth anniversary of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook.
This will put us in further danger of another Las Vegas, another
Orlando, and another Sandy Hook. The American people are sick and tired
of this. They want this Congress to protect them, not enable criminals.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on
each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Young of Iowa). The gentleman from
Virginia has 11\3/4\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York has
13 minutes remaining.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation
of the rules of the House.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in my 41 years of law enforcement, 12 years as a sheriff
of Duval County, Florida, I can tell you I have seen many, many times
where good, law-abiding citizens used legal firearms to stop dangerous
people from harming them, their loved ones, and even their neighbors.
Mr. Speaker, as a law enforcement professional, I want good people
carrying firearms.
The Fraternal Order of Police that represents thousands of officers
all across the United States of America supports good people carrying
firearms. Do you know why? Because we know, as law enforcement officers
we understand that, at our agencies, our priority one response time
target is 7 minutes.
In a life-and-death situation, we target getting there in 7 minutes.
That is in a well-policed community. I want to put Republicans,
Democrats, and everyone on notice that, for that 7 minutes, you better
be prepared to protect yourself.
If an active shooter in a mall, in a school, in a church like we just
saw in Sutherland Springs, Texas, is killing people, let's say to the
tune of five people per minute, that is an average of 35 dead, unarmed
citizens before the police can even arrive at the scene.
Believe me, we want good, law-abiding citizens who are authorized to
carry firearms to have the ability to intervene in a violent situation
before law enforcement can even arrive at the scene. We need the
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act to ensure that these good, law-abiding
citizens can retain the constitutional right to bear arms legally
across State lines and hopefully be able to stop a violent incident.
Mr. Speaker, none of our other constitutional rights stop at a State
line. Our Second Amendment rights should not stop at that line either.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 38
and save lives.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We just heard some of our other colleagues on the other side of the
aisle speak about the God-given right to apparently carry a concealed,
loaded firearm across State lines. What about the God-given right to
live, to stay alive, and to be free from gun violence in this country?
[[Page H9698]]
We now have seen the two deadliest shootings in American history, 20
children slaughtered 5 years ago at Sandy Hook, and the list goes on
and on.
Our Republican colleagues will do nothing about it. They won't pass
universal background checks. They won't pass no fly, no buy to keep
terrorists from being able to buy a gun. They won't prevent bump
stocks. But they are finally rising up to do something, and what is
their answer? Let everyone in America carry a concealed, loaded
firearm. Even people who are violent criminals, stalkers, and domestic
abusers can carry a concealed firearm.
Make no mistake about it. This legislation allows someone to go
online. You don't have to be a resident of the State, a State that has
no protections. You don't have to have training. You could be a
criminal. You can go online and you get a permit in that State. You
don't have to be a resident. You only have to go there, and you can
then travel America with a loaded, concealed firearm and overrule the
will of the people of that State through their legislature to impose
responsible limitations on it.
{time} 1530
It also endangers police officers who can be sued for having the
audacity to ask someone if they actually have a permit and detain them.
They have a cause of action against the police officer and attorneys'
fees--unprecedented.
This is the response to a country that is pleading for responsible
gun safety legislation, that is living with the carnage of gun violence
and asking this Congress: Do something about it; protect us from this
violence.
Our Republican colleagues muster up the courage to pay homage to the
NRA and make it easier to sell guns so that people can carry concealed
loaded firearms all across this country.
Shame on you. Shame on you. You have a responsibility to work with us
to protect our constituents from gun violence and to enact sensible gun
safety legislation that will reduce the incidents of gun violence. This
will make it worse.
The claim that somehow it makes it safer is refuted by all of the
empirical evidence. You know it is. Shame on the Republicans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman and other Members are reminded
to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support
of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.
Our constitutional right to keep and bear arms should not be confined
by State lines. Yet, currently, a person who has legally obtained a
concealed carry permit in one State can be denied that right by simply
crossing the State's border.
Consider my own home State of Louisiana. Our laws rightfully allow
for licensed carrying of concealed firearms. I am a concealed carry
permit holder myself. When a Louisianian leaves the State, however, our
valid concealed carry handgun permit becomes void, absent an agreement
from the State we may be in or traveling through.
The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act that we vote upon today ensures
that law-abiding citizens with a concealed carry permit are not denied
their Second Amendment right simply because they travel to other
States. The Constitution should know no such bound. It does so while
also recognizing States' rights by clearly noting that concealed carry
holders must follow the law of each and every jurisdiction.
As a constitutional law attorney myself, it is critically important
to me that the fundamental right of every law-abiding citizen to keep
and bear arms is protected; and, yes, this legislation is about
preserving our God-given freedoms. It is about public safety, and it is
about common sense.
As noted, our letter by 23 States attorneys general, including my own
home State of Louisiana, affirms that concealed carry laws deter crime.
As my friend and colleague, Sheriff Rutherford, just said here so well,
he reminded us that law enforcement wants the good guys to be armed.
The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act protects our Second Amendment
right, and I encourage my colleagues to support this important
legislation. I want to thank Congressman Hudson for introducing H.R. 38
and Chairman Goodlatte for advancing this legislation through the House
Judiciary Committee. I am proud to be a part of this historic
legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, there have been 914 cases of non-self-
defense killings by private citizens holding permits to carry concealed
loaded handguns in the last 10 years, which translates into 1,119
Americans dead by homicide, mass shooting, suicide, and murder of
police officers under concealed carry permit laws in the States.
In Florida, for example--I saw my friend, Mr. Rutherford, up there--
in August, concealed handgun permit holder, Everett Miller, shot and
killed two Kissimmee, Florida, police officers.
Now, if you want to give everybody the right to a concealed carry
permit in your States, fine. But don't impose that on the people of
Maryland. We have got our own laws, thank you. Since January, we have
had 397 gun massacres in America defined as a slaying of four people or
more. Two of them--Las Vegas, which left 58 people dead, and Sutherland
Springs, which left 26 people dead--are among the 10 worst massacres in
American history by gun.
The American people want to end this reign of terror. But what do our
friends do on the other side? Do they bring us the universal criminal
background check legislation favored by more than 90 percent of the
American people of every political party to plug the gun show loophole,
the internet loophole, and the 7-Eleven parking lot loophole? No.
Do they bring to the floor the bill to criminalize bump stocks which
they promised to us? No. No such luck. Instead, they bring forward a
bill that would wipe out the vast majority of concealed carry laws in
the United States of America, trampling States' rights and wrecking all
of the painstaking work of legislatures all over the land dragging this
down to the most lax and permissive State laws in the country. It is
not a race to the bottom, it is a plunge to the bottom they have
engineered here.
This fraudulently named bill has nothing to do with reciprocity
because States already have the power to negotiate reciprocity
agreements, and 22 of them have it.
Your bill destroys reciprocity. Your bill brings us down to the level
of the lowest, most permissive laws in the country. My State doesn't
give concealed carry permits to domestic abusers, to violent offenders,
and to dangerously unstable people. Don't drag us down to the lowest
level. Protect States' rights.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Culberson).
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, the difference of opinion on this bill
vividly illustrates the profoundly different world view of Democrats
versus Republicans. Democrats instinctively trust the government and
instinctively distrust individuals. Republicans instinctively distrust
the government and trust the good hearts and good sense of individual
Americans to be the best stewards of protecting themselves, their
family, their property, and their freedoms.
Our Founders understood this, and this is why the First Amendment
protects our freedom of conscience and the Second Amendment follows it
immediately so that we, as free people, have the ability to protect
ourselves--our freedom of conscience--against the overpowering force of
the government.
We in Texas enacted in 1995, while I was a member of the Texas house,
a concealed carry law, and we have had now over 20 years of data.
People can go to the Department of Texas Public Safety website and look
under conviction rates and see that the concealed carry permit holders
in Texas, over the last 22 years, are 21 times less likely to commit a
crime than the average Texans.
The 7 minutes Sheriff Rutherford just mentioned to us are a lifetime,
if you or your family or neighbors are at risk of attack. The
individual law-abiding American who is carrying a concealed weapon has
had a background check, they have been trained in the
[[Page H9699]]
use of the weapon, and they know the law. We all, as Americans, should
work together to preserve the Second Amendment right of every American
to keep and bear arms no matter what State they are in.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this important legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Like so many Texans, I grew up in a household that honored a
tradition of gun ownership for hunting, for collection, and for
sportsmanship, and also honored gun safety. I was taught to shoot by my
uncle, Raymond O'Rourke, jail captain and the chief marksman in the El
Paso County Sheriff's Office.
I also live in a State that has a license to carry process which
requires safety training, though 18 States do not. Texas requires that
someone who has a license to carry be 21 years or older, though 15
States do not. Texas requires that those who abuse their partners not
be allowed to have a license to carry, though 14 States do not. Texas
does not grant licenses to violent offenders, though 22 States do.
Texas does not grant licenses to people convicted of stalking, though
21 other States do.
What H.R. 38 does, Mr. Speaker, is it subjects every Texan and every
El Pasoan whom I represent to the lowest common denominator in the
United States. It will make our State less--not more--safe. That is why
I oppose H.R. 38, and I ask all my colleagues to join me in doing the
same.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out
that the attorney general of the State of Texas has signed a letter,
along with 22 other State attorneys general, in support of this
legislation and pointing out that authorized permit holders to carry
across State lines will not result in an increased risk of crime.
Further, strong evidence indicates that concealed carry permit holders
actually deter and reduce crime.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Cuellar), who is the lead Democratic cosponsor of this legislation.
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as one of the lead sponsors for the Fix NICS Act of
2017, I rise in support of this legislation which has been combined
with the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which is, again, another
section that I support, also.
On the Fix NICS Act, I certainly want to thank Senator Cornyn,
Representatives Culberson, Esty, Costello, and Aguilar for their
leadership on this particular issue that we have been working on.
A few weeks ago, 26 members of the Sutherland Springs community,
which is in my district, were killed by someone who should have never
had access to firearms. The investigation into the shooter revealed
that the shooter had a criminal history. The Defense Department and the
Air Force missed six times--six times--where the criminal justice
process should have reported the history to the NICS database.
As of 2016, the Air Force, which should have entered the Sutherland
Springs shooter's criminal information, entered a total of one active
record in the NICS record. If the Air Force would have met the minimum
obligations, then the gunman never would have been able to legally
purchase a firearm. This is why we introduced the Fix NICS Act of 2017.
This legislation ensures that Federal and State authorities comply
with existing laws to accurately report relevant criminal history--
accurately report these records to the NICS. It also provides
consequences for Federal agencies who fail to report the relevant
records and ensure that States improve their overall reporting. The Fix
NICS Act is an important step to ensure that people like the Sutherland
Springs shooter never slip through the cracks of the NICS database
again.
As to the reciprocity part of it, again, I know that both sides have
spoken on that, but, again, as a supporter of the Second Amendment, I
believe that the Second Amendment doesn't stop at political State
lines. It is part of the U.S. Constitution and should apply across.
So, again, I rise in support of this legislation, and I ask my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), who is the chairman of the
Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this dangerous bill. I asked my
local law enforcement what they thought of folks from out of State who
don't meet our local requirements coming into our communities with
loaded concealed firearms. These are the folks who are on the front
lines of fighting gun violence, and we should listen to what they have
to say.
Our Sonoma County sheriff opposes this bill and says it would
negatively affect our community and put citizens and his deputies in
greater danger.
The chief of police from my hometown in St. Helena said: As a
lifelong proponent of the ability to own, possess, and carry firearms
within the provisions of the law, I am wholeheartedly against H.R. 38.
Like many of us, he asks: How long will it take before someone who
can't meet the legal requirements to concealed carry in California goes
to some other State with little or no standards and gets a permit from
that State?
Our chief of police in Martinez opposes this bill and says that it is
a race to the bottom.
Overwhelmingly, law enforcement in my district strongly oppose this
bill. Moreover, there is a reason no major law enforcement
organizations have come out in support of this bill. It is dangerous,
and it is unnecessary.
I think my colleagues should stand with law enforcement--the people
that keep us and our families safe--and oppose this bill. Every example
that was given from my friends across the aisle doesn't pertain to this
bill. They talk about, in their States, concealed carry. Texas was the
last one. In Texas, there is a standard you have to meet to get a
concealed carry permit.
If this bill passes, you erase that standard. Somebody from out of
State who is a violent criminal can come in with a loaded concealed
firearm in the State of Texas. Someone who is a criminal in the State
of Texas, where there are rules, can go to another State, get a
concealed carry permit, and bring that loaded, concealed firearm into
the State of Texas. This is bad policy, and it should be opposed.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Dunn).
Mr. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 38, the
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. This commonsense legislation ensures
that our Second Amendment rights don't end when we cross State lines.
We are all aware of the story of Shaneen Allen, a mother of three who
was pulled over in New Jersey after committing a minor traffic
violation. She told the police legally that she had a handgun on her
person and a concealed carry permit. She was unaware that the permit
was not transferable to New Jersey, and she had no prior criminal
record. Nonetheless, she spent 40 days in a jail cell.
Americans like Shaneen are exposed to real risks of accidentally
breaking the law of another State simply by exercising their
constitutional right. This bill ensures that valid concealed carry
permits from one State are valid in all other States.
{time} 1545
It creates legal protections for law-abiding gun owners against
States that violate this statute.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this important
legislation and to show the American people the Second Amendment is
safe with us.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, we have a gun
violence epidemic in this country.
It is glaringly obvious to anyone paying attention that our Federal
gun safety laws are pathetically weak and in major need of improvement.
[[Page H9700]]
So what is this House doing about it?
Working to pass a bill that completely undermines gun safety laws and
puts more guns on the street and more lives at risk.
Believe me, if more guns made this country safer, we would be the
safest country on Earth. We are far from it.
Under this bill, someone who couldn't get a concealed carry permit in
New York would now be able to carry concealed guns into New York State
or any State, as long as they have a permit from another State. This
completely eviscerates State-level gun safety laws and puts us all at
the mercy of the weakest gun safety laws in the country.
This bill is opposed by major law enforcement organizations across
this country. I urge this body to listen to their advice and vote
against this reckless assault on State and local gun safety laws.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Budd).
Mr. BUDD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Mr. Hudson's
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.
As things stand, each State currently determines its own concealed
carry reciprocity laws. Some States don't recognize concealed carry
permits from other States. This forces lawful gun owners to sometimes
surrender their Second Amendment rights when they are traveling.
The current system has created accidental criminals, ruined lives,
and punished gun owners simply because they fell victim to complexity
and uncertainty in the law.
My colleague's bill addresses this problem by bringing much-needed
clarity to the system. H.R. 38 is a simple proposal, but a necessary
one. If enacted, it will allow lawful gun owners to carry their firearm
into other States that allow concealed carry. This interstate
recognition of concealed carry would be very similar to a driver's
license.
H.R. 38 would not create national standards for concealed carry or
take away a State's right to govern their own concealed carry laws,
like some might claim. No. This bill simply uses Congress' 14th
Amendment power to protect people's constitutional rights from State
abuse.
Samuel Adams said: ``The Constitution shall never be construed . . .
to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens
from keeping their own arms.''
This powerful line from Mr. Adams sums up my feelings on this bill
much better than I can.
I thank Mr. Hudson for his steadfast leadership on this issue.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Demings).
Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle from Florida talked about the 1.7 million concealed weapons
permits that are issued in Florida. Let me make it quite clear that
those permits are issued to Floridians for Floridians, not to any
person from any State at any time who wants to bring a gun into
Florida.
Different from my colleague, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advocate
for the safety of every American and for the safety of our first
responders, who are entrusted with that awesome responsibility.
As Members of Congress, our question should be: What can we all do to
make living in America safer?
Every day, law enforcement officers risk their lives to keep our
communities safe. Last week, I was honored that the House passed the
Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act unanimously. Police
officers have a tough job, and I think we can all agree on this point:
the job is getting tougher.
Mr. Speaker, we must ask ourselves: Why would any Member, Republican
or Democrat, support this legislation that would make a police
officer's job harder, more dangerous, and open our officers up to
personal liability for simply doing their jobs?
This reckless piece of legislation would allow persons from outside
your State to bring their firearms anywhere, including school zones,
without applying the guidelines, laws, restrictions, or oversight of
your State.
Mr. Speaker, I want you to envision this situation from the
perspective of a law enforcement officer. An out-of-state, armed
individual is stopped by that officer. Maybe that individual's license
is legitimate, maybe it is not. The officer is on the side of the road,
facing an armed individual, trying to figure out whether the
individual's permit is authentic, which the officer is obligated to do.
If the permit is fake, failing to stop that individual puts the
community at risk. If the permit is real, stopping the individual has
opened the officer up to potential personal liability.
In the last year, I have heard my colleagues on the other side talk
about how we should better empower States to decide what is in their
own best interest.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, this legislation strips individual States
of their power and puts our public safety officers in legal and
personal jeopardy.
Supporting this legislation is reckless and irresponsible. As a
former chief of police, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 38.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining
on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from New York has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).
Mr. POLIQUIN. Mr. Speaker, for generations, Maine families have
enjoyed the great outdoors. That means hunting, fishing, camping, and
hiking. That is part of who we are as a people. That is part of our way
of life.
Part of that way of life is responsibly and lawfully owning firearms.
We are comfortable with them. We have been for generations.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hudson's bill, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act
of 2017, is a commonsense fix to a patchwork of State laws that will
confuse, and do confuse, law-abiding Americans who have valid concealed
carry permits issued by their own States when they want to travel to or
through other States that have different concealed carry laws.
I want to make this very clear: H.R. 38 does not allow travel as long
as the holder of a concealed carry license does not obey the laws of
the States that he or she is traveling to. I read directly, Mr.
Speaker, from the statute: ``This bill shall not be construed to
supersede or limit the laws of any State.''
So the other side of the aisle just needs to make sure they get this
exactly right, because they have not been correct on this fact.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hudson's bill actually additionally strengthens
existing regulations by requiring Federal Government agencies to
promptly and accurately require a reporting to the FBI someone who is
mentally ill, someone who has committed a serious crime, or someone who
is in the country illegally and should not have a firearm.
This bill is a commonsense bill that will help law-abiding Americans
enjoy their Second Amendment right, their outdoor sporting activities,
and help keep our families safer.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is advanced I am not sure in the name of what,
but what it is going to do is make us less safe and to overrule all our
States.
Under this bill, someone who lives in New York could go to another
State--doesn't even have to go to another State; just apply to the
other State, get a concealed carry permit from that State, never set
foot in that State, and then use it in New York; thus, overriding New
York's laws.
We have heard it said that this bill is necessary to protect the
Second Amendment constitutional rights of gun owners. But the fact is,
there is no Second Amendment constitutional right for concealed carry.
In the District of Columbia v. Heller case in which the Supreme Court
said that the Second Amendment established a personal right, Justice
Scalia's
[[Page H9701]]
opinion held that the Second Amendment was not unlimited, a variety of
gun regulations were entirely consistent with the Constitution, and he
said:
The majority of American courts to consider the question
have held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons
were lawful under the Second Amendment for State analogues.
So the Second Amendment argument is simply wrong or disingenuous.
But let me say also that we are living in an epidemic of gun
violence. 33,000 Americans are killed every year, and 30,000 more every
year. No other country approaches this. No country--other than those at
war--in peacetime has more than 300 or 400, or even 100 or 72, and we
have 33,000. It is not because of mental illness. It is because of the
presence of large numbers of gun.
A 2017 Stanford University study found a direct correlation with the
most permissive concealed carry laws and violent crime. General studies
have shown a direct correlation of the presence of the number of guns
and murder rates by guns.
So this is a bill that is a death sentence for many Americans. That
is what this bill is. It is a death sentence without trial for many
Americans by increasing the danger of guns by overruling States that
fear and that we don't want concealed weapons on the New York City
subway or the Chicago metro or other places of great concentrations of
people.
But no, we, in our wisdom, are going to say the States with the least
restrictive, perhaps most rural, maybe sensible restrictions for them,
will impose those restrictions on other States.
It is wrong. It is a death sentence for many Americans. It ought not
pass.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) for the purpose of closing the
argument.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, we all have subjects that we find
fascinating.
For 25 years, I have actually kept files of abstracts on this because
I actually participated in writing Arizona's 1993 concealed carry law.
I desperately wish this was an intellectually honest conversation
about the data, because we all want our communities and families to be
safer. I believe I can show you the statistical abstract data.
In States like Arizona, adjusted for population, the violent use of
firearms is almost one-half of what it was before the adoption of our
concealed carry law.
Now, was concealed carry responsible for that?
Of course, not. But it is a factor. Some of it is mental health, some
of it is law enforcement, some of it is incarceration. It is
complicated. But if you actually look at these data abstracts of crime
statistics in the United States on the misuse of firearms, it turns out
that States that have adopted concealed carry compared to States that
have gone other directions, States that adopted have gotten safer.
There is actually some brilliant articles when you compare Florida
and Illinois: big, populated, demographically complex States. Florida
has gotten dramatically safer. Illinois has not.
If you really love our families, love our communities, this needs to
be an intellectually sound discussion of what factors make us safer as
a society. I believe this bill leads us in that direction.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 38, the Concealed
Carry Reciprocity Act.
While I am opposed to restricting law abiding citizens' access to
firearms, I feel that this bill does not adequately address many of the
requirements that states have instituted in passing their own concealed
carry laws.
I am a big supporter of concealed carry and was the lead author of a
bill in 1991 in the State Senate to create local concealed carry. The
way this bill is written would strip many protections that are
currently afforded to Texans.
Texas has many requirements for a person to be able to get that
license including live-fire training. As a state, we also bar convicted
domestic abusers and those convicted of violent crimes and stalking.
Under this bill, an individual who had committed those crimes could
conceal carry their weapon in Texas if they got their permit from a
neighboring state that lacked these requirements for concealed carry
like Mississippi. It is for these reasons that I do not support this
bill as it is currently written.
If we are going to create a federal reciprocity standard for
concealed carry it should be a standard that takes into account many of
the protections individual states have created. I would proudly vote in
support of a bill that addressed these standing issues.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
{time} 1600
Motion to Recommit
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit
at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Thompson of California moves to recommit the bill H.R.
38 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendments:
Page 1, line 13, strike ``(a)'' and insert ``(a)(1)''.
Page 2, line 10, strike ``(1)'' and insert ``(A)''.
Page 2, line 13, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(B)''.
Page 2, after line 15, insert the following:
``(2)(A) A person who has been convicted of a violent crime
within the preceding three years may not possess or carry a
concealed handgun under this section in a State that by law
prohibits a person from doing so on the basis of a conviction
for such offense.
``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `violent
crime' means any offense that involves injury or the threat
of injury to the person of another.
``(C) What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall
be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction
in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has
been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been
pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be
considered a conviction for purposes of this paragraph,
unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil
rights expressly provides that the person may not ship,
transport, possess, or receive firearms.''.
Mr. THOMPSON of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment
to the bill, which will not kill the bill nor send it back to
committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final
passage, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, next week will be the fifth anniversary of the hideous
mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary, where 20 kids and six educators
were slaughtered in their classroom.
This year, we have witnessed two of the worst mass shootings in
recent American history: in Las Vegas, Nevada, and in Sutherland
Springs, Texas. Every day more than 30 people are killed by someone
using a gun. This should be a call to action for everyone to work
together to help prevent gun violence. That is why 90 percent of
Americans support strengthening our gun laws, not weakening them.
Let's be clear about what this Congress is going to do today. Instead
of taking serious action on bump stocks or expanding background checks,
the majority party is undermining the very laws that work to prevent
gun violence.
For example, some States allow people who have been convicted of some
violent crimes to carry a loaded, concealed firearm.
Thirty States and the District of Columbia currently deny permits to
people convicted of those violent crimes, such as assault and battery,
threatening, or crimes committed with a weapon. So if you are from any
of these States--Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
[[Page H9702]]
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West
Virginia, or the District of Columbia--a vote for this underlying bill
is a vote to undermine your own State gun violence prevention policy,
because this bill says that, even if your State prohibits its own
residents who have been convicted of certain violent crimes, you can't
prohibit someone from another State with the same criminal record from
carrying a loaded, concealed firearm if their State allows it.
This motion to recommit would state that a person who has been
convicted of a violent crime within the preceding 3 years may not
possess or carry a concealed handgun in a State that prohibits a person
from doing so on the basis of a conviction for that very same offense.
This would be people convicted of crimes such as resisting arrest,
assault, permitting sexual abuse of a minor, aggravated assault, or
violation of a criminal sexual assault protection order--all violent
crimes.
An ``aye'' vote on this motion to recommit is a pro-States' rights,
pro-Second Amendment, and anticriminal vote.
I am a gun owner. I have been all of my life. I am not opposed to
concealed carry, but I am opposed to violent criminals having guns, and
Members should be, too.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this motion to recommit; and
if they vote against it, they are voting to allow violent criminals,
convicted criminals, to carry loaded, concealed firearms in their
community, in their State, and in their district. That is wrong. We
should prohibit that from happening.
It is a real easy fix. It could have been fixed in committee. It
could have been fixed in committee. They could have taken care of the
concerns that they have with the restrictions on concealed carry, and
they could have stopped criminals, convicted criminals, from carrying
loaded, concealed firearms. But the committee didn't do it.
We have a chance now. It is the last chance to do it before this bill
comes to a vote. I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to vote
for this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, with this motion to recommit, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying in vain to hamper
the passage of this important legislation. H.R. 38 seeks to allow law-
abiding citizens the ability to exercise their Second Amendment right
when they cross State lines.
The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the
Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm
unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Further, the Court
concluded that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to
possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, and that central to
this right is the ``inherent right of self-defense.''
Additionally, in McDonnell v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court
ruled that the right of an individual to ``keep and bear arms,'' as
protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due
Process Clause of the 14th Amendment against the States.
An individual's Second Amendment right is no different than the First
Amendment's protections on speech and free exercise of religious
expression and the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable
search and seizure or the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and
unusual punishment.
Can you imagine my colleagues' outcries if any of the aforementioned
rights stopped at their State's borders? Believe me, I can. They would
be loud and boisterous about it, and justifiably so. Despite that fact,
here they are trying to derail a bill that affords the Second Amendment
the same respect.
Now, this motion to recommit attempts to extend the law, the Federal
law, which already bars people from having firearms if they have been
convicted of a felony or misdemeanor domestic violence crimes, by
saying any violent crime be covered. And they define violent crime by
saying it means ``any offense that involves injury or the threat of
injury to the person of another.''
Well, in my State of Virginia and in most other States, it is up to
the police officer in a traffic accident, if you rear-end somebody and
you injure them, whether or not you are simply charged with a traffic
offense or you are charged with a criminal offense. That should not be
the basis of denying somebody their Second Amendment rights under the
United States Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit
and support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on:
Passage of the bill, if ordered; and
The motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con. Res. 90.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 190,
nays 236, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 662]
YEAS--190
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blum
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--236
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
[[Page H9703]]
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--6
Bridenstine
Brownley (CA)
Kennedy
Pocan
Rice (SC)
Suozzi
{time} 1634
Messrs. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania, BISHOP of Michigan, Ms. GRANGER,
Messrs. RUTHERFORD, and HARRIS changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. BLUMENAUER and BLUM changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231,
noes 198, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 663]
AYES--231
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Crawford
Cuellar
Culberson
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--198
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Buck
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cummings
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gohmert
Gomez
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
King (NY)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--4
Bridenstine
Brownley (CA)
Kennedy
Pocan
{time} 1642
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________