District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009

Floor Speech

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2009 -- (Senate - February 26, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise now for the second time in strong opposition to Senator Ensign's amendment. This is a dangerous amendment that goes far beyond anything the Supreme Court contemplated in the Heller decision. If you have been committed to a mental institution, if you can't pass a vision test, this forces the District of Columbia to still allow you to have a gun. That doesn't make any sense.

Americans basically believe in the Heller decision, which says there is a right to bear arms in the Constitution. But Americans have the good sense to know that no amendment is absolute. We put limitations on the first amendment--libel laws, pornography; you can't falsely scream ``fire'' in a crowded theater. We put limits on every other amendment. Why is it that some in the gun lobby say there should be no limitation on the second amendment? They support limitations on the first amendment. I am sure most of them feel antipornography laws are justified.

Just as those on the left, I believe, are wrong to say the first amendment should be broad, the fourth amendment should be broad, the fifth amendment should be broad, but the second amendment should be seen through the pinhole of only militias, those on the other side are equally wrong when they do the converse and say the first amendment should be narrow, the fourth amendment should be narrow, the fifth amendment should be narrow, but the second amendment should have almost no limitation.

Isn't it reasonable to say that someone who has been in a mental institution shouldn't automatically get a gun? Isn't it reasonable to say that if someone fails a vision test, they should not automatically get a gun? Of course it is. But because we get into sort of a macho game here of, hey, we are going to show there should be no limitations on the second amendment, we end up hearing about fundamentally absurd propositions that those who fail vision tests should be allowed a gun. It defies common sense to say that someone who is voluntarily committed to a mental institution should be allowed to get a gun. In fact, limitations on access to guns by the mentally ill was one of the few things Justice Scalia, a strong second amendment supporter, specifically said would be okay after Heller.

Let me just say to my colleagues, we are only a few years after Virginia Tech and the pain and tragedy for the parents who anguish every day for their lost sons and daughters. They came to us and lobbied us and said: Please just pass minimal laws to prevent those who are mentally ill from getting a gun.

Now we are saying that in the District of Columbia that will be OK.

As for the vision, there cannot be a more reasonable restriction than the requirement that someone see before they are allowed on the streets with a gun. We wouldn't want that in our communities where we live. Why would we impose it on the District of Columbia? The District of Columbia has the highest per capita homicide rate in the United States. I understand, if you are from, say, Wyoming--there are broad, open spaces, very low crime rate--that the rules on guns should be different than the rules in Washington, DC and New York City. I understand that. I accept it, as someone who has been an advocate of gun control.

But why are we imposing those laws that may work in Wyoming on the people of the District of Columbia? Firearms cause more needless damage in Washington, DC than anywhere else. The Heller decision made it clear that Washington, DC could impose reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms and that was perfectly consonant with the Constitution. Every Justice of the Supreme Court, including those who are the most conservative, such as Justice Scalia, such as Justice Thomas, believe there can be some limitation imposed. Because the NRA does not, too many in this country, and in this Chamber, jump when they say so.

It is wrong. It makes people's lives less safe. It is unfortunate. I hope this body will have the courage to reject the Ensign amendment while still affirming the right to bear arms as certified in the Heller case.

I yield the floor.

Source