Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume from my time.

I rise to support the McCain-Reed amendment and also the Feinstein amendment. I am a cosponsor, obviously, of both amendments.

I wish to talk, for a moment, about the gun show loophole. It is clear and obvious to anyone-at least I believe it is-that we should not have two different standards at a public gun show. We should not have a situation where you can approach one seller who is a licensed firearms dealer and in that transaction have to undergo a background check, and then, 5 feet away, have an unlicensed seller and be able to purchase a weapon without any type of background check.

These are public functions. Thousands of people stream through these gun shows. This is not a private sale where the seller and the buyer know each other, have an association to each other, and essentially do not need any kind of a background check. In order to prevent these gun shows from being exploited by criminals and terrorists, there has to be a common standard. Every transaction should be governed by a background check at a public gun show.

We know these unlicensed dealers and these gun shows have been exploited by criminals. I have mentioned, over the course of the last several days of debate, numerous examples. Let me return to one.

Nigel Bostic and two accomplices were arrested for buying 239 firearms at 11 Ohio gun shows and reselling them to criminals in Buffalo, NY.

It is a very obvious scheme. You go to a place, if you are a felon or a criminal, that requires no background checks, that are publicly advertised, that are easily accessible, you buy the weapons, take them to another State that has very tough laws, and you sell them to criminals.

One of these weapons was recovered in a homicide. It has been reported that Bostic purchased 45 firearms at one of these sales; his accomplices, 85 guns.

These are the examples that will continue to take place unless we close this gun show loophole. Indeed, it is obvious to gun owners it should be closed. More than 80 percent of gun owners surveyed indicated they support closing the gun show loophole. President Bush repeatedly, in the campaign of 2000, said he was for closing the gun show loophole.

The legislation that we present imposes no great burden on any participant at a gun show. Because of the National Instant Check System, 91 percent of these background checks are accomplished in less than 5 minutes; 95 percent are accomplished in less than 2 hours. The remaining checks reveal, in many cases, prohibitive purchases. That is the purpose of the check.

I think we can do something logical that is supported by the broad majority of Americans, including gun owners, by closing this gun show loophole. I hope we can do it today.

But let me, before I conclude, make a general comment on the underlying bill. We have heard the proponents of the bill talk a lot about responsibility, that we have all been taught as children that if we misuse a gun, we should be responsible for that.

Well, the underlying legislation is a license for irresponsibility. The most salient example is Bull's Eye Shooter Supply gun store up in Washington State, the source of the weapons for the snipers who were plaguing this Washington metropolitan area.

There, the individual gun dealer apparently let weapons lay around. He could not account for over 238 weapons. He did not inventory his weapons. That is what I call a misuse of a weapon. People were harmed by that misuse, but we are insulating that individual from any serious liability because there is no Federal law-and my colleagues on the other side are not likely to propose it-for strict control of the security of weapons.

I am amazed about the statistics my colleague from Idaho cited about the military support for no new weapons, et cetera. I tell you what. I served for 12 years in the U.S. Army. If you told an Army officer there was someone with hundreds of weapons, unsecured, lying around, subject to being shoplifted by teenagers, they would be appalled. Because the first thing you learn in the military is that you better secure those weapons, you better lock them up, you better inventory them, and do all the things you have to do, not only to protect yourself but to ensure those weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. This legislation, if passed, will be a license for irresponsible behavior, unconstrained by any civil suit that could not only compensate the victims but suggest a higher level of care. So I hope that not only we support these amendments but look seriously at the underlying bill.

I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I initially want to respond to some of the comments made by the Senator from Utah. I believe he read a legislative proposal that Senator McCain and I submitted last fall, not the amendment that is before us today because we specifically removed from the amendment today any requirement for the turning in of lists of vendors at gun shows to the Attorney General of the United States. That is not in this amendment.

There is no requirement for unlicensed sellers to execute any paperwork. That requirement will be undertaken by a special licensee, presumably the gun show sponsor and operator, not the unlicensed gun dealer. Furthermore, there is no requirement to seek permission from the Attorney General or any Federal authority to conduct a gun show. So I think the comments of the Senator from Utah reflect not this amendment but previous proposals. This amendment has been specifically modified to make it as easy, as efficient, and as effective as possible to conduct these background checks.

The Federal authorities have a 3-day period of time in which to execute a gun show background check, but, frankly, with the National Instant Criminal Background System, we all know the facts are clear. Ninety-one percent of these checks are accomplished in less than 5 minutes; 95 percent in less than 2 hours. If the check is not completed in 3 days, then the transaction goes through. That is just a backstop in case there is information that these Federal authorities cannot obtain.

So, frankly, the suggestion that gun shows will be put out of business is quite wrong. Those places which have even tougher standards than those suggested by the McCain-Reed bill still have gun shows, and they are still highly popular and highly successful.

I thank the Senator from Idaho for his comments about North Carolina. My comments generally talked about closing the gun show loophole. As he points out, North Carolina requires everyone who is buying a firearm at a gun show to have a North Carolina firearm permit, which is probably a more demanding standard than we are suggesting in our amendment, and we would not suggest that. That is a State prerogative. Technically, they do not require all the background checks on licensees and unlicensees, but they do in fact require any purchaser to have a permit. That is a very stringent standard.

Now, there has also been some discussion today about the fact that this is going to cause tremendous chaos because what if someone saw a weapon at a gun show and then later called a private dealer. Well, that is why the amendment clearly defines activities that are not part of a gun show subject to this amendment.

The language states:

does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual, at the private residence of that individual, if the individual is not required to be licensed under section 923 or 932.

For example, if someone is a private collector, if they have some guns in their home and they are selling those weapons from their home, then they are not subject to this provision.

It is as clear as we can make it to exempt the many people who are private collectors and the many people who, indeed, should not be subject to this license requirement.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 3 minutes have expired.

The Senator from Nevada.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Reid from Nevada, for the 2 minutes.

In summary, this amendment that Senator McCain and I proposed is as sensible as I think one can ever fashion a law. When someone walks into a gun show with thousands of individuals, hundreds of booths, it makes no sense to the average person why one individual should require a background check and another does not have to conduct a background check in the sale of a firearm. It makes sense to have an even playing field.

These are public events. It is virtually impossible for a seller at a major gun show to know the background of all the potential purchasers. We know these gun shows are exploited. This is not hypothetical. They are exploited by criminals. Goodness gracious, it makes perfect sense why they would be. It is a supermarket where a person can obtain firearms without any background check. It is like a neon sign that says: Come here if you are looking to get weapons and you cannot buy them legally.

We know what happens. We also know because of the threat of terrorists that terrorists have looked at these gun shows as possible ways to obtain firearms. Frankly, I think the American public would demand, as they have in the past, anything we can do that would curtail access to dangerous weapons to terrorists.

So I hope we support closing the gun show loophole. I also hope we support the assault weapons ban. Finally, I think we have to carefully look at the underlying legislation as a severe encroachment on hundreds and hundreds of years-indeed, many years-of common law tradition.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 2 minutes.

Mr. REED. I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me first indicate that this legislation already includes an amendment by Senator Boxer on child safety locks, so the bill is not clean.

The question today is, Will we add additional sensible gun safety measures? One of them is the assault weapons ban. That is something that is entirely appropriate, one that has been supported by vast numbers of the American public, that we should continue.

The idea we are suddenly going to open up, once again, access to assault weapons across this country is difficult to bear, particularly by police officers. That is why they are so committed to this extension of the assault weapons ban because they are the individuals who have to face these weapons on the street.

There is another amendment which I cosponsored with Senator McCain that will close the gun show loophole. Senator McCain pointed out quite clearly the terrorists who have already been identified as exploiting this loophole or attempting to exploit it. Indeed, I suspect there are others because the nature of terrorists is that they do not go around advertising themselves too much. The loophole is there. They know it is there. They will exploit it to our detriment. It is our responsibility to do everything we can to prohibit, preempt terrorists from attacking us within the United States.

My colleague from Idaho conjured up this fear that this legislation is creeping gun control; this amendment will interfere with private sales. That is why the McCain-Reed amendment clearly specified that it does not apply to the sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual at the private residence of that individual. That is a private transaction unaffected by this legislation.

We know this loophole is being exploited. We know guns are going into the hands of criminal elements, perhaps terrorist elements, through the gun show, and we also know it makes no sense to anyone-forget legislative, forget advocates, the common person-to walk into a gun show and understand some people have to do background checks and others do not because those weapons are equally dangerous. The potential customers of these shows could be terrorists, could be criminals. We have to be responsible and reasonable. That is exactly what this amendment does.

This amendment does not create any new Federal bureaucracy. It does not require a gun show operator to report vendors to the Attorney General. It does not require that the Attorney General approve a gun show. It places no administrative burden practically at all on an unlicensed vendor.

Just remember, 5 years ago, two young men went into a high school and killed 13 people because they were able to exploit the gun show loophole.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I understand we are about to vote on the Feinstein amendment. On behalf of Senator Feinstein, I urge all colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment would continue a ban on assault weapons that has been in place for 10 years. It has ensured that military weapons will not be on the streets of America, will not be used in crimes, will not be accessible to terrorists, which will not force our police officers to confront these weapons.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a continuation of present law. It is not a new law. I think the American public has come to understand this law and appreciate it and support it. I think they would urge its adoption and its continuation. Again, I urge a favorable vote on the Feinstein amendment.