National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2010
Floor Speech
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 -- (Senate - July 22, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank all my colleagues who are working with us on this amendment. The Senator from California, who will speak after me, has been such a leader on these issues. She and I were commenting that this is probably the most dangerous piece of legislation to the safety of Americans when it comes to guns since the repeal of the assault weapons ban, which she led the charge on to pass. I thank my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, who has been a leader on gun issues and has done such a great job; also, Senator Menendez, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Durbin, and so many others who are working with us today on this issue.
Today we are here to urge all our colleagues to oppose this legislation. The legislation would do nothing less than take State and local gun laws and tear them up. It would take the carefully crafted gun laws in New York and tear them up. It would do the same in 47 other States.
The great irony of this amendment is that the pro-gun lobby has always said: Let the States decide. Now they are doing a 180-degree turn and saying: Let the Federal Government decide and impose the lowest common denominator, when it comes to carrying concealed weapons, on all the States, except Illinois and Wisconsin which do not have any carry laws.
We know the gun lobby is strong. We know there are many Members on both sides of the aisle who believe strongly in an individual's right to carry arms. But this legislation goes way beyond the previous pro-gun laws we have voted on this session. It is a bridge too far. It threatens the safety of millions of Americans, particularly in urban and suburban areas. It directly threatens the safety of millions of New Yorkers. Let me illustrate.
Our neighboring State of Vermont--it is a beautiful State; I have great respect for it and its two Senators--is a rural State. It has a strong libertarian belief, and it has a very lenient concealed carry law. The Vermont law says that if you are 16 years of age, you can apply for a gun license and you automatically get a concealed carry permit and you get the gun. That is all you have to do.
Can you imagine if this law passed what would happen? Known gun runners would go to Vermont, get a gun license, get a concealed carry permit, and they could get 20, 30, 50 guns concealed in a backpack, in a suitcase, and bring them and sell them on the streets of the south Bronx or central Brooklyn, bring them to Central Park or Queens, and our local police would have their hands tied.
One of the points I would like to make to my colleagues about this amendment is it endangers not only the citizenry but our police officers. Today, at about this time, the mayor of the city of New York and our police commissioner will be speaking out against this proposal. Our police commissioner is particularly upset because his job is the safety of police officers. When a police officer stops someone in a car, they now have the safety and sanctity of mind to know that if that person has a gun in their car, it has been approved by the New York City Police Department. There are people who need to carry guns for self-defense or other purposes. After this law passes, they have no such peace of mind, no such safety. Imagine you are a police officer and you stop someone. They could be from 47 different States with 47 different requirements, and you are responsible to figure out if that person has a gun in his car and has the right to carry a gun in his car. It is impossible to do in our larger urban areas.
For that reason, each State has carefully crafted its concealed carry laws in a way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. Clearly, large urban areas, such as New York, merit different standards than rural areas, such as Wyoming. To gut the ability of local police and sheriffs to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense. It could reverse the dramatic success we have had in reducing crime in most parts of America.
That is one point I wish to stress. One of the things I am proudest of, what our government has done over the last 20 years--Federal, State, local--is greatly reduce crime. My city of New York gained 1 million people, I think, in large part because people were no longer afraid to come and live in New York. If you ask the experts--not me, not Senator Thune, not any of us who have political beliefs that might differ--ask the police experts: What is one of the top reasons we have been able to reduce crime in our cities, it is that we have had reasonable laws on guns, and we have allowed our larger urban, more crime-ridden areas to have stricter laws than our rural areas.
I understand in my State of New York that guns are a way of life in large parts of the State, and I respect that. The Heller decision is a decision I welcomed. I talked about the right to bear arms in the Constitution. I believed in it even before Heller. But you know--and this is what I would like to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle and in the NRA--no amendment is absolute. You are right when you say: Why should the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments be expanded as far as we can and the second amendment be seen through a pinhole of militias? You are right. But similarly, no amendment is absolute.
Most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support laws preventing the spread of pornography. That is an infringement of the first amendment but a reasonable one because there is a balancing test. Most of my friends on both sides of the aisle would support libel laws. If somebody says something very defamatory about a citizen, they should have the right to sue, of course. That is a limitation on the first amendment. We don't rail against it.
The concealed carry laws of the States are reasonable limits on the second amendment. If you are to believe the second amendment should have no limits, of course, you would vote for this amendment. But then I ask you the contrary question that some who are pro-gun ask those of us who believe in more gun control. How is it that the second amendment should have no limits but the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth should have limits? Of course, if reasonable limits in a balancing test exist, and if there is any balancing test that makes sense, it is the one of allowing each State to come up with its concealed carry law.
I don't think this is an amendment of which anyone can be proud. I understand the power of the gun lobby. I understand we have different beliefs and represent different States. But we are not trying to say what South Dakota should do. Why should South Dakota say what New York or California should do?
When I spoke--and I have great respect for the sponsor of this amendment--when we were speaking in the gym yesterday morning, he said one of the problems he hears about in his area--and I understand it--is a truckdriver in the cab of his truck carries a gun and is allowed to carry a gun. Why should that truckdriver, when he crosses State lines, goes from South Dakota to North Dakota, be limited? I can understand that argument. But this amendment goes way beyond that. It doesn't talk about one weapon. It doesn't talk about a person who has been granted a license because he needs it for protection as he commerces across State lines. It is unlimited based on whatever the lowest common denominator State would do.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source