Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - June 30, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has pulled back from total repeal of our gun safety laws. I wish I could thank him, but I do not think Mayor Williams or Chief Ramsey would yet be ready to do so. Our moderate, even-tempered Mayor, who has worked so well with this Congress and the administration, is much praised in this Congress, is really beside himself when at a time crime is at a 20-year low, here comes the Congress to do what he and the police chief say will surely increase crime.
Disassembled weapons, yes, citizens may have them in their house. Look what this does: loaded shotguns, loaded handguns, as long as citizens had them before 1976, in your home or in your place of business. Let me say that the Board of Trade does not want them in our places of business. They came to testify in total support of the laws as they are. The businesses of the District of Columbia have petitioned the Congress to keep our laws exactly as they are. Businesses say the last thing they want is the kind of liability and responsibility they would have for keeping a gun in the place of business, so they do not do it.
Post-9/11, do Members really want to legalize shotguns, handguns grandfathered in the District of Columbia at a time when we are still stopping people at checkpoints to see whether they are terrorists? Do Members know what can happen here? Someone can take one of these rifles or shotguns to the roof of an apartment or office building, aim it at foreign visitors, tourists, Members of Congress or their families, not to mention residents of the District of Columbia. I am particularly worried about children, teens.
Imagine big long guns, now loaded. Some people would call that an attractive nuisance. That is a term of art in the law. Parents, I think, would call it an unattractive, deadly, very lethal weapon. That is who is most likely to be attracted by this new set of gear that you can have loaded in your home.
There must be countless handguns that have been disassembled that were held before 1976. Now just load them up. So the same kids who knew they were unloaded before, do not know perhaps that now the guns are loaded, and here we have kids among the thousands who die every year in play from guns.
Mr. Chairman, no Member of Congress has the right to usurp our right to protect ourselves and our kids as we see fit. That is a basic right of self-defense of every jurisdiction.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
The gentleman talked about somebody breaking into your house. What his amendment does is to legalize shotguns, rifles. Already it seems to us insane that you would have a handgun at the ready when somebody broke in. And, remember, handguns grandfathered before 1976 would be legal. But imagine somebody breaks in and you go get a long rifle or a shotgun. This isn't about self-defense. This is about pressing forward the gentleman's preferences on the District of Columbia where unanimously every mayor of the city of D.C., every city council member overwhelmingly, all the residents have voted ``no.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. No Member of Congress has the right to encourage guns in homes where the overwhelming evidence is that they are mostly used for suicides and in domestic quarrels, and please do not do that here in the District of Columbia because that is the most likely use of such guns in homes. The most bankrupt rationale offered for this outrageous interference in a local jurisdiction is that we already have gun violence in the District of Columbia. Let me hear the cosponsors argue with a straight face that allowing guns in people's homes will reduce rather than increase the gun violence in the District of Columbia.
The most deeply held principle of the Founders was local control. First local from England, and then because they were so deeply principled, they denied to the national government that they themselves created any control of the local jurisdiction. The Congress gave us this control in the Home Rule Act. I ask the Congress of the United States to respect the mayor, the council and the residents of the District of Columbia by in fact defeating this amendment.
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Source