Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that would stop the District of Columbia from taking any action to prevent law-abiding citizens from possessing, using, or transporting a firearm.

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller that struck down the unconstitutional D.C. handgun ban, it is still difficult for D.C. residents to exercise their God-given right to bear arms. Congress has the authority to legislate in this area pursuant to article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority ``to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District of Columbia.

Through unreasonable regulation, arbitrary time limits and waiting periods, and a ridiculous registration renewal process for guns that have already been registered, the government bureaucrats of the District continue to interfere with the District's residents' right to self-defense.

As the Washington Times reported earlier this year, the District of Columbia has passed the first law ever in the United States that requires a citizen who has already legally registered a gun to pay for reregistration, go to police headquarters and submit to invasive photographing and fingerprinting. This is pure harassment.

Why would the D.C. government want to punish and harass law-abiding citizens who simply want to defend themselves from criminals? As everyone with even the smallest bit of common sense knows, criminals, by definition, don't care about the laws. They will get the guns any way they can.

Does anyone actually believe that strict gun control laws will prevent criminals from getting guns? Strict gun control laws do nothing but prevent good people from being able to protect themselves and their families in the event of a robbery, home invasion, or other crime.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I certainly disagree with the gentleman's points there.

First of all, Congress has the constitutional authority to legislate and exercise over all matters in the District of Columbia. Furthermore, if a law enforcement officer in the District of Columbia is not already familiar with Federal laws, then I question whether he should be a law enforcement officer.

But most of all, I would make the point that the underlying bill already contains language that is virtually identical in form to the amendment that I have offered. For instance, section 809 states that ``none of the Federal funds contained in this Act may be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act.''

There are multiple examples in the underlying bill where the structure of those portions of the bill are identical to my amendment and require knowledge of law.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source