Protecting Our Kids Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, today we are debating six gun control provisions in one. Why are there six bills in here? Because none of them work.

But you can't take six bills that don't work and put them together and make one that does. It doesn't work that way.

These are unserious, unconstitutional and, most troubling, dangerous provisions; six titles in this bill, and they all suffer the same inherent problem that gun control suffers when we pass it here in these legislatures, and that problem is, criminals do not obey the law. They are going to love some of these laws, though.

Let's take, for instance, the so-called safe storage provisions in here. Home invaders are going to love the fact that Congress has now told you you need to lock up your gun in your house. How are you going to defend yourself when your guns are locked up? This is dangerous. It is also unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court already ruled in Heller that it is unconstitutional to require Dick Heller to keep his gun disassembled and unloaded in his house. That violates the Second Amendment.

Think about the provision to raise the age to 21 to buy a long gun. That includes rifles and shotguns, not just a handgun, which is already impermissible. This is unconstitutional, and it is immoral.

Why is it immoral? Because we are telling 18-, 19-, and 20-year olds to register for the draft. You can go die for your country. We expect you to defend us, but we are not going to give you the tools to defend yourself and your family.

I offered an amendment in committee that would let the spouse of somebody in the armed services serving overseas acquire the means of self-defense while her husband is serving overseas; let her defend her and her children. Just because she is 18, 19, or 20, and her husband is serving, she shouldn't be defenseless. The Democrats voted it down in committee.

I offered an amendment to say that we won't treat domestic violence victims as gun traffickers if they happen to get a gun from a neighbor instead of getting it from the gun store. Every Democrat but one voted against protecting domestic violence victims.

Let me give you one that is not a hypothetical. My dear friend Nikki Goeser, who worked in my congressional office, watched her husband murdered in front of her in a gun-free zone because she followed the law. She had a licensed registered firearm and, in a moment she regrets to this day, she left it in her car because she knew the law said not to bring it in there; but her stalker knew she wasn't going to have a gun. Her stalker murdered her husband in front of her.

Criminals don't follow the law. So let's do the one serious thing we could do.

Why must children keep dying? Let's quit advertising our schools as soft targets. Let's quit saying that these are gun-free zones, and that these kids are sitting ducks.

In 1990, Congress did another knee-jerk reaction that has cost more lives than it saved. It is called the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act.

Fortunately, some States and school districts have had the wisdom to override this provision. And guess what? We don't have to guess.

Does hardening our schools work? Does letting trained teachers and professional staff carry, does it protect children? We know it does. Because in every single school district, every school that has allowed them to carry, there hasn't just been no mass shootings, there hasn't been a single shooting. Why?

Because these insane individuals, they seek one thing. They seek some twisted version of glory, which involves a body count. And they know they will not achieve that if they walk into that school and the first thing they see when they whip out their gun is a staff member who is armed and trained, and they die unceremoniously. That is what they deserve.

Put three of those on the news, and you could stop this.

So we should quit advertising our schools. Quit making that the Federal default that they are sitting ducks.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.

The Democrats today say they don't want to take your guns away. Well, then why does the legislation do just that?

What they should say today is: We don't want to take all of the guns away from all of the people just yet because we know we can't get away with that.

The reality is the anti-Second Amendment lobby has vastly outspent all of the pro-Second Amendment groups put together in the last several elections.

Who is in the pocket of whom?

So the red flag laws take all of the guns from some of the people, and the bill that will pass tonight, if the Democrats are fortunate enough to do so, will take some of the guns from all of the people.

Now, why are the gun owners who don't own so-called high-capacity magazines, for instance, concerned?

Why are the gun owners who don't own, for instance, AR-15-style weapons concerned about this legislation?

Because they know the legislation won't work, and the response to this unserious and unconstitutional legislation that will allow the school shootings to continue will be more gun control from the Democrats.

Let me give you an example, Madam Speaker. They have a high-capacity magazine ban in here that bans any magazine that can accept over 15 rounds.

Well, guess what?

At Virginia Tech, the shooter carried 17 magazines none of which held more than 15 rounds and most of which held 10 rounds. The shooter at Columbine carried 13 magazines, each of which held 10 rounds. This legislation would have done absolutely nothing.

It is not about how many rounds a magazine holds. It is about the evil intent of the shooter and is there somebody there with the capacity to stop that shooter before they can get going.

Why is this legislation dead on arrival in the Senate?

Why is it dead on arrival in the Supreme Court?

One of my colleagues has already acknowledged they know this is unconstitutional, and they will pack the Court if they have to. They said it in the Judiciary Committee, to keep this legislation alive after it should long since die.

But why is it dead? Because Americans don't support it.

You have quoted statistics. Those statistics are fake. If they were true, this would breeze through the Senate. But they are not.

And so I urge my colleagues to respect the Constitution; respect the will of the American people; to respect the safety of American citizens and, most of all, the safety of children. Let's do something to protect them instead of these fake virtue signals that will do nothing but to curtail the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source