Cybersecurity Act of 2012--Motion to Proceed--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I, like everyone else in America, have followed the terrible tragedy in Aurora, CO. Just awful. I was particularly moved when I read in one of our local papers the bios of the 12 who had died. So many of them were young, in the prime of life, in their late teens and early twenties. So many of them were brave, protecting others--a child, a girlfriend, a friend. I was so upset on reading this, seeing these people's lives snuffed out, just as they had great futures ahead of them--for nothing.

It was the same kind of feeling I had after the World Trade Center--of course, magnified by much more because so many more people died, and I actually knew some of the people who died. But the same senseless killing of innocent people occurred.

Of course, in the days after the tragedy, and as the dust settled--it will never settle for the families whom my heart goes out to--we began our usual discussion about guns in America, and there were many voices on all different sides.

As somebody who has been very involved in these issues, I gave it some thought and wanted to share with my colleagues and with my constituents and my country some thoughts about this.

The question that comes up is: Can we do anything about guns in society? Of course, many would ask: Should we do anything about guns in society? Even the very thoughtful and erudite member of my own party, the Governor of Colorado, said a ban on weapons would not have stopped this tragedy from occurring, in all likelihood.

So I wish to share some of my thoughts briefly.

The bottom line is, maybe we can come together once and for all on the issue of guns if each side gave some. I have thought about this for a while.

As you know, Mr. President, I was the House author--the leader, of course, was my colleague from California--of the assault weapons ban. I am even prouder of the Brady law, where I was probably the leader, and that has saved so many lives.

So the question is: When we were able to pass those kinds of groundbreaking laws, why are we so paralyzed now?

Part of the reason--and this has not been mentioned--is that crime has actually decreased dramatically in America for a whole lot of reasons. I probably do not share the views of some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle as to why it happened. I am a pretty-tough-on-crime guy. But when crime went down, the broad middle that wanted to do whatever it took to stop crime--I remember how it ravaged my city--stopped caring as much because they were safer. That is logical. So they sort of exited the field. Law enforcement, which had been some of our best allies in supporting the assault weapons ban and the Brady law, sort of left the debate. The debate was simply left to those who cared the most, a very small number on the side of more active laws against gun control and a much larger number on the side of those who were opposed.

I know you read in the newspapers: the power of money and the NRA. I have to say this, as somebody who has opposed the NRA and has been written up regularly in their magazines in not the most flattering way, the NRA's main strength is because they have 2, 3, 4 million people who care passionately about this issue, who may not care about other issues, and who are mobilized at the drop of a hat. So when there is a bill on the floor of the Senate which a majority of Americans may support--a majority of Americans support the ban on assault weapons--even people in my State like New York hear much more from the people who are opposed to the assault weapons ban than the people who are for it. Now, 20 years ago, that would not have happened, again, because I think, more than any other reason, crime was so ravaging our communities that average folks would call and complain and worry about too many guns in society, which I think there still are now.

In any case, given that situation, which exists, that the activists, the people who care about this issue the most--not the majority of people--are on the side of no limitations or few limitations on guns, how can we address that balance?

I think there can be a balance. Those on my side who believe strongly in some controls on guns have to acknowledge that there is a right to bear arms. It perplexed many in the pro-gun movement how liberals would read the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth amendments as broadly as possible, but when it came to the second amendment, they saw it through a pinhole--it only related to militias, which, frankly, is a narrow, narrow, narrow reading of the second amendment.

There were many back then in the 1980s and 1990s in the pro-gun control movement who basically felt there was no right to bear arms. I think in part, because of that, those on the other side of the issue became kind of extreme themselves. Their worry was that the real goal of the left was not simply to have rational, if you will, laws that might limit the use of guns--what guns could be had, how many clips, who could have them; criminals, the mentally infirm--but, rather, that was just a smokescreen to get rid of guns. And there was enough evidence back in the 1980s and 1990s that people actually wanted to do that.

So if you look at the ads from the NRA and the groups even farther over, the gun owners of America, their basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your gun, even if it is the hunting rifle your Uncle Willie gave you when you were 14.

I think it would be very important for those of us who are for gun control--some rational laws on guns--to make it clear once and for all that is not our goal, to make it clear that the belief is that the second amendment does matter, that there is a right to bear arms, just like there is a right to free speech and others, and if you are an average, normal American citizen, you have the right to bear arms.

I think if the people who are pro-gun and from the more rural areas, and different than Brooklyn, the city I am from, were convinced that there was a broad consensus even in the pro-gun control movement that there was a right to bear arms, they might get off their haunches a little bit. I think that is important for this part of the compromise. So the Heller decision, which basically said that--and now is the law of the land, but was not until a few years ago--should not be something that is opposed by those who are for rational laws on guns.

I saw that even the Brady organization, that I have worked very closely with--Jim and Sarah Brady helped us pass the assault weapons ban and the Brady law; I have worked with them closely and have known them for decades--but even the Brady organization, which in the past had not had that position, is now beginning to embrace it. I think that is for the good, and I think people should know that.

Once we establish that it is in the Constitution, it is part of the American way of life--even though some do not like that--but once we establish that basic paradigm: that no one wants to abolish guns for everybody or only allow a limited few to have them under the most limited circumstances--this is on a national level--then maybe we can begin the other side of the dialog.

The other side of the dialog is, once you know no one is going to take away your gun, if you are not a felon--your shotgun that you like to go hunting with or a sidearm if you are a store owner in a crime-ridden area--we can then say to those on the other side: OK. We understand that it is unfair to read the second amendment so narrowly and read all the other amendments so broadly, and you have seen us as doing that. But, in response, we would say, and I would say, that no amendment is absolute, and whether it is in reaction to what happened in the 1980s and the 1990s or because of fanaticism, or for maybe fundraising reasons, it seems that too many on the pro-gun side believe the second amendment is as absolute, or more absolute, than all the other amendments. They are taking the converse position to what I mentioned before--the left seeing the second amendment as minuscule, but the right seeing the second amendment as broader than every other amendment.

Certainly, the right believes in antipornography laws. That is a limitation on the first amendment. Certainly, most people in America believe what--I think it was Oliver Wendell Holmes or Louis D. Brandeis who said: You cannot falsely scream ``fire'' in a crowded theater. That, too, was a limitation on the first amendment.

Every amendment is a balancing test. That is what the Constitution has said.

No amendment is absolute or our society would be tied in a complete knot. And so we say to our colleagues, this is not a partisan issue completely. There are some Republicans who are for gun control and some Democrats who oppose it completely. It seems to be more of a regional issue than almost an ideological issue. But we would say to our colleagues from the pro-gun side of things, look, there is a right to bear arms. We are not trying to take guns away from people we do not have any reason to take them away from. But you have to then admit that you cannot be so rigid, so doctrinaire that there should be no limitation on the second amendment.

The Brady law is a reasonable limitation on the second amendment, saying that felons or the mentally infirm or spousal abusers should not have a gun. The Heller decision acknowledged that those kinds of reasonable limitations did not violate the second amendment, just as the Court has recognized they are limitations that do not violate the first amendment, all because it is a balancing test.

So I would argue--and we can all find the balance in different ways--not only is the Brady law a reasonable limitation on the second amendment, it is not interfering with the average person's right to bear arms, but neither are the assault weapons. I know there was an argument between my colleague from California, with whom I agree, and my colleague from Wisconsin, with whom I do not agree: An AR-15 is used for hunting. But I have heard people say you should be able to buy a bazooka or a tank. My view is, the assault weapons ban that was passed, which was a rather modest bill, was less important in saving lives than the Brady law by many degrees. But I would argue it is a reasonable thing to do. A limitation that says you should not be able buy a magazine that holds 1,000 rounds, that is a reasonable thing to do. Rules that say we should be able to trace where a gun originated so we can find those who are violating some of these limitations such as the Brady law--gun shops that do not check your background even though they are required to by law--is a reasonable thing to do. Again, we can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness.

But we might, might, might--and I do not want to be too optimistic here, having years and years of having gone through this--but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle where we say, yes, there is a right to bear arms, and, yes, there can be reasonable limitations on the second amendment just as there can be on others.

That is the place I suggest we try to go. Maybe, maybe, we can break through the hard ideological lines that have been drawn on this issue. Maybe, maybe, maybe we can tell those who are at the extremes on the far right and the far left that we disagree with you. And maybe, maybe, maybe we could pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary tragedies that have occurred, or, at the very least, when you have someone who is mentally infirm, such as the shooter in Aurora, limit the damage they are able to do. Maybe.

But I would suggest the place to start here is for us to admit there is a right to bear arms, admit the Heller decision has a place in the Constitution, just like decisions that supported the other amendments, and at the same time say that does not mean that right is absolute. That is just a suggestion. I have been thinking about this since I read those horrible articles about those young men and women being killed. I would welcome comments, particularly from my colleagues on the other side of this issue, whether they be Democrat or Republican, on those thoughts.

Just as we have fought over and over and over again on so many issues, and we have gotten into our corners--there may be none that we have gotten into our corners on more than on gun control. Maybe it is time, as on those other issues, to come out of the corners and try, people of good will, who will disagree and come from different parts of the country with different needs, maybe there is a way we can come together and try and try to break through the logjam and make the country a better place.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source