National Capital Security and Safety Act

Floor Speech

NATIONAL CAPITAL SECURITY AND SAFETY ACT -- (House of Representatives - September 16, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act.

The bill before us this evening has been crafted with great care and with utmost concern for the safety and well-being of our Nation's capital--its residents, businesses, visitors, and the Federal Government.

I would like to recognize and thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) as well as Committee Chairman HENRY WAXMAN for their leadership in bringing today's bill to the floor and for not turning a blind eye to the concept of home rule and self-governance by attempting to rewrite the District's new gun laws since the Supreme Court's decision in the Heller case.

The measure has been considered and debated thoroughly by the oversight committee and was approved by a vote of 21-1, which demonstrates the bill's bipartisan support.

As chairman of the subcommittee with oversight authority over the District of Columbia, I am well aware of the long history behind the District's gun regulatory efforts as well as the city's continual efforts to protect its citizens against violence and crime. As chairman, I'm also well aware of the effect that the presence of the Federal Government places on the security concerns of the District.

H.R. 6842 seeks to highlight this issue by urging the District's city council to take into consideration such issues as homeland security, military functionality, threats of terrorism, and foreign dignitary protection as they continue to amend their laws to be in compliance with the Supreme Court's Heller decision.

The measure being considered today serves as a commonsense and practical approach to ensuring the requisite protection of our Nation's capital, while at the same time supporting the District in its efforts to reform its own gun laws versus rewriting the laws for them.

That is the job that the District's elected officials are tasked with, not Congress, and I am happy to see that this legislation recognizes that, especially since according to information from the District City Council, efforts are already underway to address several outstanding second amendment issues from the Supreme Court's Heller decision and expressed by Members of Congress in other pieces of legislation. The Council is revisiting the definition of ``machine guns'' and ``semiautomatics'' and making current gun storage requirements advisory versus mandatory.

In light of the city's efforts today, today's bill, H.R. 6842, represents both the least and the most we should be doing at this moment and at this level. The bill upon enactment gives the District 6 months to finalize its laws governing the possession and use of firearms as necessary to comply with the decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller.

As the city continues to perform its work to produce a permanent gun law reform package, I am sure that at some point in the future Congress, under its legislative review authority, will have the chance to revisit this issue under regular and proper protocol. But until then, let us continue promoting the importance of self-government and home rule for the District of Columbia and the importance of safety and security in our Nation's capital by supporting H.R. 6842.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Mississippi. The amendment, which is largely taken from the base bill H.R. 6691, goes way beyond the ruling that's been handed down by the Supreme Court in the Heller case and, ironically, would lead to less security and safety and greater risk in the Nation's capital.

Moreover, in light of the ruling in the Heller case, the gentleman's amendment touches on more than just the issue of gun ownership in the home for purposes of self-defense.

The amendment would allow the unfettered transport of guns and/or firearms and the possession of guns in businesses, and as written, the amendment only says businesses and nothing about businesses in which property is owned.

And what is even more disturbing about the amendment is that it strips the District of Columbia from issuing or enacting any rule, law, or regulation dealing with homeownership. Nowhere in the case was such an order or action addressed or even mentioned in the Heller Supreme Court decision as written by Justice Scalia. In fact, it is my understanding that the decision clearly stated that a range of gun regulations are presumptively lawful. However, the gentleman's amendment fails to take that part of the Court's ruling into consideration.

When the Court overturned the District's long-standing gun laws, in order not to infringe upon the second amendment rights of District residents, it set in motion a process that would require the District Government to rewrite the laws and not the United States Congress or the House of Representatives. This would be the case in Tupelo, Mississippi. Therefore, the elected officials of the District of Columbia should have an opportunity to develop permanent legislation to bring the city into compliance with the Heller ruling.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, let me point out just what the amendment before us does. For starters, it would eliminate any form of gun registration which would prevent the city's police department from knowing who owns what type of gun or firearm.

Secondly, the language is written so broadly that it would permit individuals to carry assault rifles openly in public and on D.C. streets.

Lastly, I'd also like to point out that the amendment creates a gun show loophole that will allow D.C. residents to avoid background checks when purchasing weapons from private individuals and at gun shows without background checks.

While Members from both sides of the aisle agree on the importance of preserving individual rights, we must also recognize that we live in perilous times, and with lone-wolf terrorists and copycat shootings on the rise, flat out ignoring the homeland security interests of the District of Columbia and the Federal Government is downright reckless and risky.

But yet, this is exactly what this amendment has the potential to do, if adopted. As stated earlier, the District has already begun to revamp its laws, and in the coming months, we will have an opportunity to review the newly adopted gun ownership laws under our already well-established congressional review authority.

I ask my colleagues to recognize and respect this fact and to join me in opposing this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source