Providing for Consideration of H.R. 822, National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me rise in opposition to this restrictive rule, yet another restrictive rule. A lot of good amendments were not made in order, and Members do not have the right to offer amendments as they see fit during this debate. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule for that reason.

Madam Speaker, another week and another hot button social issue is being brought to the floor by this extreme Republican leadership. A few weeks ago, this House debated an abortion bill. That's months after we considered legislation to defund Planned Parenthood. This Republican leadership has tried to overturn the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act this year, simply because their corporate constituency demands it. And now we're turning to guns.

We're about to debate legislation that makes it easier to carry concealed weapons in the United States. In fact, we're considering a bill that will make it easier for convicted felons. Yet what do Americans want most of all right now? Are they screaming for a lengthy debate on abortion issues? Do they want us debating whether or not we need to reaffirm our national motto? Are they clamoring for more lenient gun laws?

No, Madam Speaker. The American people want jobs, J-O-B-S, jobs. But my Republican friends are either too stubborn to listen or just don't care enough to do something about the problem. Maybe they are just covering their eyes and plugging their ears, hoping that this crisis will magically disappear. That may work for a 6-year-old who's scared of ghosts, but that's not how you govern a country.

Our unemployment rate is 9 percent. There are just under 14 million unemployed Americans; millions more are earning less now than they were before the economic crisis simply because they were forced with the choice to take a lower-paying job or face unemployment. And what's the Republican response to this problem? Not a jobs bill. In fact, the Republicans haven't brought up a jobs bill once in this Congress. So what, then, is their response to the jobs product? Surprise, surprise; it's a gun bill.

Madam Speaker, what are we doing here? This is nuts. This isn't what the American people sent us here to do. The irony is, many of the new Republicans were allegedly sent here because of their opposition to Federal encroachment on States' rights, but here we are debating a bill that imposes the Federal role on States and undermines States' laws.

This is crazy in normal times, Madam Speaker. It's even crazier today. And unlike the resolution reaffirming our national motto that we debated a few weeks ago, this legislation will have real impacts on people's lives. Madam Speaker, people will be hurt because of this legislation. People, in fact, may die because of this bill. Don't take my word for it; look at the facts. The bill obliterates State and local eligibility rules for concealed weapons. It eliminates the State's discretion to honor another State's permits. It requires States with responsible restrictions--like my home State of Massachusetts--to allow people with permits from States with lax laws to bring concealed weapons into those States. Simply, it allows a person to bring a hidden loaded gun into a State where, under today's laws, they are currently ineligible to carry a concealed weapon.

Now there are reasons that States don't allow certain people to carry concealed weapons, and each State is different. My home State of Massachusetts doesn't issue concealed weapons permits to people who have specific dangerous misdemeanor criminal convictions or alcohol abuse problems, as well as people who have not completed firearm safety training, people who do not have a good character, or those who are under the age of 21.

I would like to insert into the Record a letter from the Massachusetts Secretary of Public Safety and Security in opposition to this bill.

But under this bill, a person who is convicted of spousal abuse in one State could go to a second State for a concealed weapon permit. When they get that permit, this bill allows that felon to bring their weapon into Massachusetts even though they would not be eligible for a concealed weapon permit under Massachusetts laws.

Now my friends on the other side of the aisle will say that this bill is necessary, that more guns mean less crime, that people need to be able to protect themselves. Well, that's not how our Nation's mayors see it. Mayors Against Illegal Guns strongly oppose this bill because it makes our cities less--not more--less safe. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, founded by Boston Mayor Tom Menino and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is made up of over 600 mayors of all political stripes, united to respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners while keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people. And I'm especially grateful for the national leadership of Mayor Tom Menino, who has long been a champion on this issue.

Not only do more than 600 mayors in this coalition oppose this bill, but so do the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Foundation, the National Latino Peace Officers Association, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. In fact, not only does the American Bar Association oppose this bill, but so does the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

I would like to insert into the Record the statement by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns in opposition to H.R. 822.

Madam Speaker, Massachusetts is fortunate to have a number of anti-gun violence leaders in the Commonwealth. In addition to Mayor Menino, we are home to Stop Handgun Violence and, specifically, its founder John Rosenthal. Gun safety laws work. They keep our citizens safe. In fact, Massachusetts has the most comprehensive and effective gun violence prevention laws and initiatives and the lowest firearm fatality rate per 100,000 population of any urban industrial State and second lowest overall behind Hawaii.

Every day more than 150 Americans are shot, and 83 die from gun violence in the United States. A child under 20 years old dies from gun violence every 3 hours, eight kids every single day. We could fill Fenway Park three times over with the 110,000 kids under 20 years old killed by guns in the past 30 years, and there is still no national law requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales in the U.S. In fact, in 33 States, there is no background check requirement or even proof of ID for private gun sales. And today we're going to make it even easier for these people to carry concealed weapons.

Massachusetts is the leader in gun violence prevention. We should be working to prevent gun violence, not encouraging it with legislation like this. Madam Speaker, Federal preemption of Massachusetts law will only result in more innocent and largely preventible gun deaths in my home State. The same holds true for nearly every State of the Union. In fact, preempting State gun laws will make this entire country less safe, and I cannot and I will not support legislation that makes our neighborhoods and our cities and our States less safe.

Madam Speaker, let me conclude by saying, if we want to combat crime, if we want to make our neighborhoods safer, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us and bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. Let's provide people with jobs and economic security. Let's revitalize our neighborhoods that are struggling now in poverty. That's what we should be doing, not debating a bill to make it easier to carry concealed weapons. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on final passage of the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record dissenting views from the Judiciary Committee, entitled, ``Loosening Restrictions on the Carrying of Concealed Guns in Public Does Not Improve Public Safety.''

Concealed carry laws have not made us safer. As a result, forcing states with strict permitting standards to recognize permits issued by states with weak standards would make us even less safe. Proponents of H.R. 822 have cited research by John Lott that has been widely discredited. In fact, as columnist Michelle Malkin has pointed out, Lott has been accused of fabricating a study on which he bases the claim that 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved mere brandishing as opposed to shooting. Malkin reported that Lott incorrectly tried to attribute the data to three different studies, and when another researcher offered to independently verify Lott's findings, Lott claimed to have lost all of his data in a computer crash. He also could not produce any financial records, contemporaneous records or any of the students who supposedly worked on the survey. 78 other studies conclude that guns are far more likely to be used in crime than in self-defense. One such study found that the number of criminal gun uses outnumbered the self-defense use of a gun by a factor of at least 4 to 1.79

At this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record an article from The New York Times, entitled, ``So Much for Small Government.''
[From the New York Times, Oct. 25, 2011]

So Much for Small Government

House Republicans usually claim to be champions of both small government and states' rights, which makes it hypocritical, and downright reckless, that they are obsessed with taking away the authority of states to decide who is allowed to carry a concealed and loaded handgun.

On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee voted 19 to 11 for a measure that would do exactly that. Only one Republican, Representative Dan Lungren of California, joined the committee's Democratic members in voting against the bill.

This extreme legislation, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, would obliterate state and local eligibility rules for concealed weapons and the state's discretion to decide whether to honor another's permits.

At least 36 states now set a minimum age of 21 for carrying concealed guns, and 35 states require some sort of gun-safety training. Thirty-eight states prohibit people convicted of certain violent crimes like misdemeanor assault or sex crimes from carrying concealed weapons.

The act would override those rules, requiring states with tight restrictions, like New York and California, to allow people with permits from states with lax laws to tote concealed and loaded guns in their jurisdiction. Wording added by the committee exempts people with a concealed-carry permit from one state from having to meet eligibility standards set by the state they are visiting.

The measure, pushed by the National Rifle Association, would undermine legitimate states' rights by nationalizing lenient gun rules most states have rejected for themselves. It would increase the chance for gun violence and make it harder to combat illegal gun trafficking.

Nevertheless, the full House is expected to approve the bill soon. That would leave it to the Senate, where a similar bill could surface any day, to protect Americans. Much will depend on Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader. He voted for a similar measure two years ago while running for reelection. Nevada law enforcement groups oppose the bill, and the state recently ended reciprocity for concealed-carry permits with Utah and Florida out of concern about the weak licensing rules in those states. For the safety of the people in Nevada and elsewhere, he needs to lead in the right direction this time.

I would also like to insert into the Record an article by Frank Bruni, entitled, ``Have Glock, Will Travel.''
[From the New York Times, Oct. 24, 2011]

Have Glock, Will Travel
(By Frank Bruni)

Between the struggle to fold a sport jacket so it doesn't wrinkle, the 45-minute wait on a security line if I'm flying, the price of gas if I'm driving and the worry either way that I left the coffee maker on, I thought I was pretty well versed in the inconveniences and stresses of domestic travel.

Hardly! Things could be much, much worse, namely if I were a gun owner with a permit to carry a concealed firearm in my home state and an itch to do so in any other state I visited as well.

As matters now stand, I'd have to defer to the laws of those states, which vary widely. In some, my permit from back home would suffice, even if getting it required little more than proper adult identification, proof of residency and a smile. The smile might even have been negotiable. A scowl and a clean felony record and I was good to go.

Other states are sticklers, recognizing only their own concealed-carry permits and granting or withholding those based on such killjoy criteria as whether someone has a violent misdemeanor conviction, a history of alcohol abuse or any actual training in weapon safety. Some free country, ours.

Thank heaven for the National Rifle Association, its sights ever fixed on the forces that try to separate Americans from the deadly firearms they like to keep snug at their sides.

The N.R.A. is pushing a bill, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, that would eliminate the gun-toting traveler's woes. Should it become law, any state that grants concealed-carry permits, no matter how strict the conditions, would be forced to honor a visitor's concealed-carry permit from another state, no matter how lax that state's standards.

Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A.'s chief lobbyist, recently wrote that the current situation ``presents a nightmare for interstate travel, as many Americans are forced to check their Second Amendment rights, and their fundamental right to self-defense, at the state line.''

Nightmare? I think that term better applies to the N.R.A., though it's not the first word that springs to mind when I mull its current effort.

Contradiction, hypocrisy: those words rush in ahead. The bill thus far has more than 200 Republican cosponsors in the House, many of them conservatives who otherwise complain about attempts by an overbearing federal government to trample on states' rights in the realms of health care, tort reform, education--you name it. But to promote concealed guns, they're encouraging big, bad Washington to trample to its heart's content.

Imagine how apoplectic they'd be if, on certain other matters, Washington forced their states to yield to others' values the way this bill, H.R. 822, would compel New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut to honor more permissive gun-control regulations from the South and West. As it happens these three Northeastern states all perform same-sex marriages, which more conservative states do not have to recognize.

It's not fair to talk only about Republicans. H.R. 822 has dozens of Democratic co-sponsors as well, and when Democrats controlled Congress for the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency, they made no major progress on gun control. Reluctant to cross the N.R.A., they let it slide.

In 2009, when Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, was about to enter a tough reelection battle in Nevada, he actually voted in favor of legislation highly similar to H.R. 822. It was defeated. That same year President Obama signed a law permitting concealed guns in national parks.

The story on the state level has been just as sad over the last few years. Wisconsin recently approved concealed-carry legislation, leaving Illinois the only state in which civilians can't carry concealed firearms. Several states have enacted laws spelling out that concealed weapons can in many circumstances be carried into bars.

One was Tennessee, where a state lawmaker who sponsored the legislation, Curry Todd, sometimes carries a loaded .38-caliber gun. I know this because it was beside him when Nashville Cops pulled him over two weeks ago for drunken driving. They also charged him with carrying a firearm in public while intoxicated. At least that's still illegal.

New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and several other states don't have reciprocity arrangements that allow someone like Todd to pay an armed courtesy call. That's because New York officials can deny concealed-carry permits on a case-by-case basis, whereas many other states--South Dakota, for example--don't put much stock in such scrutiny.

H.R. 822, now in the House Judiciary Committee, makes a mockery of our diverse values and strategies for public safety. If it were enacted, off to New York the South Dakotan tourist could go, 9-millimeter Glock in tow.

That's not liberty. More like lunacy.

I would also like to insert into the Record a letter to the leadership of this House signed by Martha Coakley, the attorney general of Massachusetts, opposing this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source