Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States Courthouse and Federal Building

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, let me first say, God bless the United States Supreme Court. And God bless President Trump for the people he selected for our highest court. Today's decision is a win for the Constitution and a win for the sanctity of human life. June 24, 2022, a date that will be remembered as a win for the sacredness of human life.

Now this bill. Mr. Speaker, the rights spelled out in the First Amendment and protected by the Second Amendment are why the United States is different than every other country. It is why we are special. It is why we are the greatest Nation in history.

For 18 months, the Democrats have attacked our First Amendment liberties. Today, they are coming after our Second Amendment liberties. And who knows what it will be tomorrow. I can only imagine.

My guess is, in light of the decision yesterday from Justice Thomas, the decision today from the Court, my guess is they are going to look to pack the Court. The Democrat chair of the Committee on the Judiciary has already introduced legislation to pack the Court.

It might be amnesty for the 2 million illegal immigrants who have come into our country in the Biden administration. They told us they want to end the electoral college and the filibuster--and who knows what it will be tomorrow. But today, they are coming after law-abiding American citizens' Second Amendment liberties.

Understand what this legislation does. This legislation tells States: Someone who doesn't like you can report you to law enforcement or to a judge. There will be a hearing, a hearing where you can't be at, your lawyer can't be at, you can't confront your accuser. You didn't commit any crime, but they can take your property. They can take your guns. They can take away your Second Amendment rights. And then you have to petition to have a subsequent hearing where you get them back. That is what this legislation does.

And understand this, and this is so important. This is not being done in a vacuum. Understand what we have seen from the left and how they have weaponized a government against their political enemies.

Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago, it was the IRS targeting conservatives.

Mr. Speaker, 6 years ago, it was the FBI spying on President Trump's campaign.

More recently, it was the Department of Justice using counterterrorism measures against moms and dads.

Just a few weeks ago, the Department of Homeland Security set up the Disinformation Governance Board; going to chill everyone's speech. Today, they are coming after your Second Amendment liberties.

Here is the good news: Yesterday, the Supreme Court got it right. They got it right when it came to the Second Amendment. We should celebrate that. I hope that this bill doesn't pass. It seems like it is going to, but I hope it doesn't.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what saves lives. The decision we got from the Supreme Court today saves lives. This bill takes rights away from law-abiding citizens, their Second Amendment liberties. That is the key distinction.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. We sure aren't the same, Mr. Speaker. We actually think you should protect the sanctity of human life, and we so appreciate the decision from the Court today. We don't think you should take away rights from law-abiding American citizens.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in Dobbs earlier this great morning, and in the New York State RPA decision yesterday, the Supreme Court declared something astonishing, which has electrified the country and left radicals seething: The Constitution means what it says.

In New York State RPA, the Court reiterated what Heller decided in 2008. To paraphrase, the decision said: Like we told you the first time, the Second Amendment protects an individual, fundamental right weighed and decided upon by the people at the founding.

But just as most of the courts of appeals flouted Heller by reweighing that right over and over for more than a decade, the Senate again flouts the new decision before the ink is dry.

What is the historical analog from the founding era under which the right to bear arms could be targeted for complete deprivation upon less than complete process rights? Name it. Name the historical analog. That is Congress' burden.

The renewed assault on the Second Amendment is more than sufficient grounds to oppose this bill, but even the constitutionally permissible components repeat the terrible misjudgment that has afflicted this type of legislation for far too long.

I have said before that you are not grappling with the issue: 60 years of targeted destruction of the American culture by the secular and postmodernist left. Foremost in that destruction has been the unrelenting assault on the family.

So what does this ``do something'' bill do?

It displaces families further by building a massive new mental health delivery bureaucracy into public school agencies; it connects Medicaid and CHIP directly to schools for early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services in schools; and it supports the provision of culturally competent and trauma-informed care in school settings.

Americans who have been watching will hear a familiar refrain in that jargon. It means beyond the reach of parents and the reach of common sense.

Who is it that is delivering this double down on woke to your child at school? Republican Senators.

Moms and dads across the country, if you thought that Washington has heard you loud and clear, you are sorely mistaken.

Washington has yet to recognize that it is the author of the devastation we confront, and Washington is still failing to grapple with the core issue. They are taking another step down the long path we have trod that has transformed America just as they want.

Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this bill is, at the same time, an attack on constitutional rights and a dangerous, poorly thought out, ill-defined improvisation.

Wringing your hands and doing something instead of the right thing will continue having the same result it has had since the 1960s.

Show that honesty and courage does not reside only in the Supreme Court building across the street. Defeat this bill.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Jordan, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this anti-Second Amendment legislation. I know firsthand how important firearm ownership and the Second Amendment are for self-defense.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, I was in the batter's box at a baseball field in Virginia, practicing for our Congressional Baseball Game, when a deranged gunman tried to kill us because we were Republicans.

The attack would have been a massacre if not for the armed U.S. Capitol Police Officers, my heroes, David Bailey and Crystal Griner, who were there.

The actions on that field that day solidified my support for the Second Amendment. Remember, Mr. Speaker, this gunman wanted to settle his political differences with us, who were trying to fix a broken healthcare system, with bullets on a baseball field.

It is not what we do in the United States of America, but that day, my thought was, I wish I had my firearm to protect myself.

We don't need more laws and restrictions that make it more difficult for law-abiding, gun-owning citizens to exercise their constitutional rights and protect their families.

We need to support law enforcement and get tough on criminals who steal guns and commit violent crimes and further improve mental health programs.

I am a proud gun owner. I am a concealed carry licensee and a strong supporter of our Second Amendment. I always have and always will work to preserve the Second Amendment for law-abiding, American citizens. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this attack to undermine the Second Amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, experience has taught me when you have to say a bill is constitutional, it is probably not. When you have to say a bill adheres to due process, it probably doesn't. And this bill certainly doesn't.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

Proponents say that this bill doesn't violate due process. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You haven't been charged with a crime, but there is a hearing, a hearing that you are not allowed to be at. You can't be present at a hearing where you don't have a lawyer and a hearing where a judge can take your property.

Again, just to underscore this, you haven't been charged with a crime, but there is a hearing where your property and your rights are at stake.

You are not allowed to be there; your lawyer is not allowed to be there; and you can't confront your accuser. But they can take your gun; they can take your property; and they can take your Second Amendment liberty.

Here is the scariest part of all: As my friend from Kentucky just pointed out, the Democrats say this is just the first step, that this doesn't go far enough. Holy cow. So that kind of proceeding doesn't go far enough when it comes to your Second Amendment liberties?

One of the key things that separates this great Nation from all other countries is how we have due process in our justice system. This bill takes it away. No other way to put it.

You can say all day long that it doesn't violate due process, but as I said just a few minutes ago, every time I hear that, experience has taught me that it most certainly does. When you have to say it, it probably does. In this case, it is certainly violating due process. There are other problems, but for that reason alone, we should vote ``no.''

Again, the scariest thing of all is that they are saying: ``Oh, this is just the first step. This doesn't go far enough.'' Imagine where they want to take us.

Their beef is with the Second Amendment. They want it to go away. Don't let it happen. I urge a ``no'' vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source