Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, this is a civil liberties amendment. It clarifies and strengthens existing Federal law.

The amendment is necessary, unfortunately, because while the underlying law protects a traveler who is transporting a firearm under the Federal regulations that the firearm has to be locked in a proper container and out of the reach of the person if he is in a car, et cetera, in one's traveling from State A to State B, sometimes on the way from State A, where the gun is lawful, to State C, where the gun is lawful, one must pass through State B, where the gun may or may not be lawful.

What we have found is that, notwithstanding the fact that it is lawful in State A and is lawful in State C and is protected by Federal law while being transported, some State and local governments have decided that they are not going to follow the Federal law, and they end up arresting the otherwise law-abiding traveler. We have examples of this. It is not just that they are out and are necessarily looking for the traveler, but there are circumstances that occur.

One example that happens fairly frequently is that an airline passenger has done everything he is supposed to have done in that he has followed all of the security rules. Then, for reasons beyond his control, his flight in State B is missed. So he has traveled lawfully and he has checked his gun lawfully, he has done everything he is supposed to have done, but when he gets to the layover terminal, his flight is either already gone or it has been canceled.

In one case in particular, the gentleman was told ``you need to go a hotel. Take your bags. Come back the next morning.'' When he went back the next morning, he was arrested by State law enforcement individuals because his gun was not legal, notwithstanding the fact that he had done everything he was supposed to have done.

In another very tragic situation, a gentleman was traveling from New Jersey to South Carolina. He was a veteran, so he stopped off in Washington, D.C., at Walter Reed, to see one of his doctors. He was lawfully transporting the firearm under Federal law and he was arrested.

Now, while most of these cases end up getting worked out either as a misdemeanor or by some other arrangement, it is still a great impediment on the traveler to use the Federal law lawfully.

This amendment says if that happens, if one is stopped by the State or the local government, that the prosecutor in that State or local area must prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt that this individual was not following the Federal law. It sounds like a pretty reasonable American principle.

If it is determined that the traveler was lawful and was actually arrested and has to go to court to defend himself, the court will award attorneys' fees to that individual.

We are just trying to make him whole. We are not paying him for the time he served in jail. We are not paying him for the fact that his vacation plans or his travel plans were disrupted. We are just saying that there ought to be something that tells the local and State governments that you ought not do this again or you are going to pay this gentleman or this gentlewoman her attorneys' fees.

To me, that is taking care of civil liberties and is making sure that the people who are following the law are not wrongfully arrested without their having any recourse. I see this as a civil liberties amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you that I am really surprised that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle aren't supporting this civil liberties amendment. Clearly, they have misinterpreted the amendment.

First of all, it only applies if somebody is lawfully transporting a gun--where it is lawful in State A to another State where it is lawful. If you are going to be on a trolly car or on a cable car, you have to be transporting that gun from one State to another and it has to have been lawful to begin with and lawful at the terminis. It is only in the interim that that would be an issue.

I would say to the gentleman that this is not about any kind of personal lawsuits against law enforcement officers. It says the court shall award attorneys' fees against the local government or the State that is prosecuting the individual. I would also say to the gentleman that it is only for wrongful arrest.

I practiced criminal law for 28 years. There is a huge difference between detention, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have alleged this bill would affect, and arrest. This bill does not do one single thing. They are simply mistaken on detention. It doesn't do anything. If you want to stop somebody, if you want to investigate, he may miss his flight. Arrest means one has been placed into custody, has been taken down to the station, has been booked, and is having to post bond.

That is what this bill deals with. When someone is wrongfully arrested, when he has been following the Federal law, he should, in fact, have his attorneys' fees restored to him. It is reasonable attorneys' fees. It is not whatever--the sky and the Moon--the attorney might ask for. A court determines if they are reasonable attorneys' fees.

This is just a small measure to make sure that when somebody makes a mistake and a local government goes forward with a prosecution, that you get some of that back. We are not paying you for being in jail. We are not paying you for being arrested. We are not paying you for having your rights taken.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source