Chapter 10
There Should Not be Stricter Gun Control Laws

STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (1943–, R-TX), ON WASHINGTON, D.C., GUN BAN CASE BEFORE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, MARCH 18, 2008
SPEECH BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (1936–, R-AZ), AT THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA's CELEBRATION OF AMERICAN VALUES CONFERENCE, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 21, 2007
TESTIMONY OF REPRESENTATIVE PHIL GINGREY (1942–, R-GA), ON H.R. 1384, FIREARMS COMMERCE MODERNIZATION ACT, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY, MAY 3, 2006
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAVID VITTER (1961–, R-LA), CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, U.S. SENATE, INTRODUCING A BILL TO HELP SAFEGUARD AGAINST UNITED NATIONS' INFRINGEMENT ON SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, JULY 27, 2005
STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN MARK SOUDER (1950–, R-IN), CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, INTRODUCING A BILL TO BAR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FROM PROHIBITING ITS RESIDENTS TO POSSESS FIREARMS LEGAL UNDER FEDERAL LAW, SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN CORNYN (1952–, R-TX), AGAINST THE PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT, PARTICULARLY CLOSING THE GUN-SHOW LOOPHOLE (EXCERPT), MARCH 2, 2004
TESTIMONY OF CHARLTON HESTON (1923– 2008), PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (NRA), BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (EXCERPT), NOVEMBER 4, 1999
STATEMENT OF SENATOR STROM THURMOND (1902–2003, R-SC), TO THE U.S. SENATE, JANUARY 5, 1995
STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JACK KINGSTON (1955–, R-GA), TO THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 18, 1994

This chapter presents a sample of the arguments used by the opponents of strong federal gun control to support their position since the 1990s. Chapter 9 provides arguments put forward by supporters of strong federal gun control.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (1943–, R-TX), ON WASHINGTON, D.C., GUN BAN CASE BEFORE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, MARCH 18, 2008

Today's oral arguments were a major step forward in the case that for the first time gives the Supreme Court a clear opportunity to establish the second amendment right as one of an individual to protect themselves in their home with possession of a gun. I was pleased to submit an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court with the most signatures of members of Congress ever obtained for a brief to the court. Our amicus brief, signed by 54 Senators, the Vice President and 250 members of the House of Representatives firmly stated that every congressional act has assumed this second amendment to be one for individuals, not an organized militia. It is my hope that the Supreme Court will settle this clearly so that there will be no further attempts by gun control advocates to undermine this important right established by our Founding Fathers.

SPEECH BY SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (1936–, R-AZ), AT THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA's CELEBRATION OF AMERICAN VALUES CONFERENCE, WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 21, 2007

For more than two decades, I've opposed the efforts of the anti-gun crowd to ban guns, ban ammunition, ban magazines, and paint gun owners as some kind of fringe group, dangerous in “modern” America. Some even call you “extremists.” My friends, gun owners are not extremists, you are the core of modern America. The Second Amendment is unique in the world and at the core of our constitutional freedoms. It guarantees an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. To argue anything else is to reject the clear meaning of our founding fathers.

But the clear meaning of the Second Amendment has not stopped those who want to punish firearms owners—and those who make and sell firearms—for the actions of criminals. It seems like every time there is a particularly violent crime, the anti-gun crowd comes up with a plan to capitalize on tragedy and limit Second Amendment rights for all Americans. I opposed the ban on so-called “assault weapons” which was first proposed after a California schoolyard shooting. I thought it made no sense to ban a class of firearms based on cosmetic features. I opposed waiting periods for gun purchases. We lost on both of those in the short run, but it has worked out better in the long-run. Fortunately, that gun ban sunsetted after 10 long years. And, I was proud to vote against those who tried to extend it in 2004.

I also opposed efforts to cripple our firearms manufacturers by making them liable for the acts of violent criminals. This was a particularly devious effort to use lawsuits to bankrupt our great gun manufacturers. A number of big-city mayors decided it was more important to blame the manufacturers of a legal product than it was to control crime in their own cities. Fortunately, we are able to protect manufacturers from these frivolous lawsuits.

In my years in Washington, I have seen what I will call three myths used by politicians to excuse their support for gun control. First, is the big city myth: that it is acceptable—even necessary—to fight crime in big cities. If you have a crime problem, they say it's really a gun problem. So instead of increasing police patrols, instituting tough sentences for lawbreakers and other measures that would actually address crime, we restrict ownership of guns and limit the rights of law abiding citizens.

We are meeting today in a city that represents the worst of this myth. The citizens of the nation's capital do

not enjoy the right to keep and bear arms. That is why I have co-sponsored legislation repealing the ban on firearms possession for law abiding citizens in the District of Colombia. The Second Amendment is not just for rural Arizona, it is for all of America.

The second myth is that of the “bad gun.” This was at the core of the debate over so-called “assault weapons.” Proponents of this myth argue that some kinds of guns are acceptable—for now—but others are not if they have certain features—like a pistol grip or an extended magazine. I will continue to oppose those who want to ration the Second Amendment based on their views of what guns it applies to.

Finally, there is the hunting myth—if you show your bona fides by hunting ducks or varmints or quail, it makes up for support for gun control. This myth overlooks a fundamental truth: the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about freedom.…

Let's be clear. If [the Democratic candidates] are elected President, they will go after the rights of law abiding gun owners—just as Bill Clinton did when he was president. MoveOn.org, which seems to be calling the shots in the Democratic Party these days, will have more influence on gun control in the Oval Office, not John Dingell. These Democratic candidates voted to ban guns or ban ammunition or to allow gun makers to be sued out of existence as Senators. Think how much worse it would be if they had the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices, name Attorneys General and use the full power of the federal government.

TESTIMONY OF REPRESENTATIVE PHIL GINGREY (1942–, R-GA), ON H.R. 1384, FIREARMS COMMERCE MODERNIZATION ACT, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY, MAY 3, 2006

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of my bill, H.R. 1384, the Firearms Commerce Modernization Act.

I introduced this legislation after I learned about some of the severe and, quite frankly, obsolete restrictions that Federal law imposes on businesses and individuals who want to sell firearms legally through our Nation's interstate economy.

In general, since 1968, it has been illegal for any person without a Federal firearms license to buy or sell handguns across State lines. Licensed dealers cannot sell firearms, except certain collectibles, at a gun show outside of their own State.

Even between dealers, who go through a thorough background check to get a dealer's license, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives does not allow face-to-face transfers. So dealers who agree on a sale must go back to their stores and ship the firearm.

Gun theft is a major source of the firearms used in crime, and it is senseless under current law to make a licensed dealer ship a firearm when they can make a legal and documented transaction at the time of purchase.

My bill would do three simple things, Mr. Chairman. Firstly, it would make it legal for a licensed dealer to sell a handgun to a resident of another State as long as they do the sale in person, and they obey the laws of both States as well as Federal law.

And secondly, it would allow dealers to do business at out-of-State gun shows. Again, they would have to obey the laws of the State they were visiting—this addresses Ranking Member Scott's concerns—as well as all the Federal laws and regulations they normally obey.

It would allow, thirdly, dealers to transfer firearms directly to one another, instead of risking theft or loss during shipment.

The reason we can make these changes today is really quite simple. It's based on technology. These restrictions were imposed in 1968, when the only way for a dealer to conduct a background check on an out-of-State buyer was by sending a certified letter to the police in the buyer's home State, waiting for a reply, and then waiting a week before making the sale. That was 1968 technology.

But today, dealers can request background checks with a phone call or online by either contacting the FBI directly or by contacting a State police agency that uses the FBI's database. They get an answer in seconds and with an exceptional degree of accuracy. This routine applies one way or another to every gun sold by every dealer in every State.…

And we're going to improve this database with Representative McCarthy's bill. Just to show you how far the technology has come, any teenager can go online today and order a $500 laptop computer that carries more computing power than NASA carried on the first space shuttle 25 years ago. It costs less, and the teenager does not have to be a rocket scientist—no pun intended—to use it. And if you bought a new cell phone in the last year, you're probably carrying more memory, programmability, and computing power in your pocket than AT&T had in all its long distance systems in the late 1960's.

So, with all of these advances, there is every reason to allow law-abiding individuals to buy handguns in other States, just as we currently allow for long guns. The key point is that anyone purchasing a firearm would, by Federal law, still have to go through the background check, and they would still have to obey the laws of their home State as well as the State where the sale takes place.…

And that last point is very important because I know there are some arguments that this legislation bypasses

strict or very strict certain State laws. And those arguments are just not true. If you are from California or Massachusetts or New York, you would still have to obey your own State laws before you could buy a handgun at home or anywhere else. That would include licenses, waiting periods, bans on certain kinds of guns, or any other restrictions. And if a dealer is not confident he can comply with those laws, no one can force him or her to make the sale.

Mr. Chairman, I believe H.R. 1384 is a reasonable piece of legislation that helps get rid of some restrictions that we just do not need anymore and, frankly, can be downright dangerous. And I appreciate your time and effort in considering this legislation.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAVID VITTER (1961–, R-LA), CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, U.S. SENATE, INTRODUCING A BILL TO HELP SAFEGUARD AGAINST UNITED NATIONS' INFRINGEMENT ON SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, JULY 27, 2005

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would withhold United States contributions to the United Nations if the U.N. interferes with the second amendment rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

The U.N. has no business interfering with the second amendment rights guaranteed by our Constitution. That is why I am introducing legislation to safeguard our citizens against any potential infringement of their second amendment rights.

In July, 2001, the U.N. convened a conference, known as the “Conference on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects in July 2001.” One outcome of the conference was a resolution entitled, “The United Nations Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.” This resolution calls for actions that could abridge the second amendment rights of individuals in the United States, including: (1) national registries and tracking lists of legal firearms; (2) the establishment of an international tracking certificate, which could be used to ensure U.N. monitoring of the export, import, transit, stocking, and storage of legal small arms and light weapons; and (3) worldwide record keeping for an indefinite amount of time on the manufacture, holding, and transfer of small arms and light weapons.

The U.N. also wishes to establish a system for tracking small arms and light weapons. How would they do this? It would be done by forcing legal, licensed gun manufacturers to create identifiable marks for each nation. The gun manufacturer's lists would then be provided to international authorities on behalf of the U.N.

Who would maintain these intrusive lists? Would it be the World Customs Organization, which the U.N. has suggested as a possible vehicle? That organization counts Iran, Syria, China, and Cuba among its membership. Would all World Customs Organization members have access to such lists? In the event that those with access to such information abuse or misuse it, what would be the remedy? How would we prevent unauthorized persons, perhaps criminals and terrorists, from acquiring such information from rogue nations who have declared the United States an enemy?

Some at the U.N. have suggested that tracing certain financial transactions of a legal and law abiding gun industry could be a useful tool in tracking firearms. What would such tracing entail? Does the U.N. expect to receive private U.S. banking records of a legal and law abiding industry?

Furthermore, the U.N. has encouraged member States to integrate measures to control ammunition with regard to small arms, and some members have expressed a desire to tax international arms sales. The U.N. has no legal right or authority to collect a tax from American citizens to further any agenda, especially gun control measures.

The U.S. Constitution has guaranteed our citizens the right to keep and bear arms. I intend to help protect that right with this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the Second Amendment Protection Act of 2005.

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN MARK SOUDER (1950–, R-IN), CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, INTRODUCING A BILL TO BAR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FROM PROHIBITING ITS RESIDENTS TO POSSESS FIREARMS LEGAL UNDER FEDERAL LAW, SEPTEMBER 29, 2004

Today, we will be debating a bill that will go a long way in protecting the constitutional rights of the residents of the District of Columbia.

As all may know, currently in Washington, D.C., citizens are prevented from owning any handgun at all. I am bringing before you today a bill that would restore the second amendment rights of D.C. citizens. I think it is important to note that my bill would not repeal any provision of D.C. law that bans gun possession by criminals, or that punishes violent crime.

In 1976, 2 years after Congress had granted the District of Columbia home rule, the D.C. City Council passed a bill which repealed the handgun ban in the District. The handgun ban actually arrested progress. In the 5 years before 1976, when the handgun ban was put into effect, the murder rate in the District of Columbia had fallen to 27 per 100,000 from 37 per 100,000, according to researchers at the American Enterprise Institute. Five years after the ban, the murders had

climbed back to 35 for every 100,000 residents. From that point, it became worse.

In the 13 years between 1987 and 2000, D.C. earned the dubious distinction as the murder capital of the United States. In 2002, it once again had the highest murder rate per 100,000 residents, making it the murder capital of the United States 14 of the last 15 years.

There have been a lot of misunderstandings and mis-communication about what this bill does and does not do. So I will address the bill's provisions in the order in which they appear in the bill.

First, the bill prohibits the District from prohibiting residents from possessing a firearm that is legal for them to possess under Federal law, while still maintaining the Federal ban on private possession of any firearm regulated by the National Firearms Act.

Second, the bill would bring the District's definition of a machine gun into conformity with Federal law and the laws of the States. Currently, the District defines the term machine gun to include firearms that fire only one shot when the trigger is pulled. That is not what a machine gun is, of course. A machine gun fires repeatedly when the trigger is pulled and held back. The District's definition is simply factually incorrect, and this bill will perform the necessary correction.

Third, the bill eliminates the District's firearms registration requirement and, logically, eliminates the penalty for the possession of an unregistered firearm. This does not, however, in any way change the Federal requirement that firearm dealers maintain records of firearm sales. Dealers will still be required to maintain Federal forms which identify the purchasers of firearms by name, address, date and place of birth, and other factors.

Fourth, the bill eliminates the District's ban on private possession of handguns and handgun ammunition.

Fifth, the bill eliminates the District's ban on the use of firearms for protection at home. Currently, the District prohibits a person from having even a lawfully owned firearm at home, loaded and assembled, and unlocked.

While some States have laws designed to have people keep firearms secured in a similar fashion when they are unattended, the District's law requires people to keep firearms unloaded and disassembled or locked even if a violent criminal is attacking them in their homes.

The U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of 44 States, Federal law, and the laws of all 50 States, and the vast majority of Americans recognize the right to use firearms for personal protection. Only the District of Columbia prohibits a person from having a firearm assembled and loaded at home for the purpose of self-defense.

That is why 229 Members of this body are not supporters of the bill, they are cosponsors of this bill. Forty-four of the cosponsors are Democrats. This is truly bipartisan legislation that has come up from the demands of the American people.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN CORNYN (1952–, R-TX), AGAINST THE PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT, PARTICULARLY CLOSING THE GUN-SHOW LOOPHOLE (EXCERPT), MARCH 2, 2004

I believe it is absolutely imperative that, rather than focusing on and punishing law-abiding citizens who want nothing more than to provide for their families by engaging in a lawful enterprise and producing a legal product, we ought to focus our law enforcement efforts on the criminals. Indeed, we have found through programs such as Project Exile in Richmond, VA, and Texas Exile in my own State, we can have a real impact by punishing the convicted felons who illegally possess firearms and those who use firearms illegally to jeopardize our communities and threaten our communities, and that there is absolutely no benefit to be gained by passing additional laws, as the proponents of these amendments would do, that limit the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I would like to just mention in closing why I believe we do need to expand the role of instant background checks to all commercial gun sales, no matter where they occur. But as well-intentioned as the amendments proposed by Senator McCain and Senator Reed and Senator Lieberman and others are, the so-called closing the gun show loophole bill—as well-intentioned as they are, I think it misses the mark. I would like to work with them to try to bring the instant background check to all commercial gun sales in this country.

The problem is this amendment, as well-intentioned as it is, will have the effect, should there be a State attorney general who doesn't seek a 24-hour instant background check period, that there will be a default through a 3-day check period, which will essentially obliterate gun show sales.

It is important to point out that, currently, everybody who is a dealer in firearms is subject to the Federal firearms license. Indeed, there is no such thing as an unlicensed dealer. But what this amendment would seek to do would be to affect people who are not dealers in firearms, but are collectors, people who engage in sales to friends and family and others, and these are. As long as they are lawful possessors of these firearms, I don't believe the full apparatus of the Federal Government ought to intrude on that ability to conduct a sale that is no threat to the people of this country.

TESTIMONY OF CHARLTON HESTON (1923– 2008), PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (NRA), BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (EXCERPT), NOVEMBER 4, 1999

There is no dispute that just 150 miles from here, in sleepy Richmond, Virginia, they cut gun homicides by one-half in just one year. They employed the awesome simplicity of enforcing existing federal gun law. It's called Project Exile. The word is out on the streets of Richmond that, if you're a felon caught with a gun, you WILL go to jail for five years. They're actually changing criminal behavior and saving lives. That's not partisan, that's not conjecture, that's not hyperbole. Thanks to those fearless prosecutors, innocent Americans are alive today in Richmond that would have died at the hands of armed felons.

But elsewhere across this land, innocent Americans alive today will be dead tomorrow or next month or next year … because this administration, as a policy, is putting gun-toting felons on the streets in record numbers. If you don't believe the NRA, believe the recent independent Syracuse University study that revealed federal prosecutions of gun crimes have dropped by 44% during the Clinton-Gore administration. Right here in our nation's capital, there were some 2,400 violent crimes committed with firearms last year. Guess how many of those armed criminals were prosecuted from federal referrals? Only two. In fact, little old Richmond had more prosecutions under federal gun laws in 1998 than California, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C.—combined!

Why does the president ask for more federal gun laws if he's not going to enforce the ones we have? Why does the president ask for more police if he's not going to prosecute their arrests? This deadly charade is killing people and surely will kill more. When political hot air is turning into cold blood… when duplicitous spin is becoming lethal… somebody's got to speak up.

No lives will be saved talking about how many hours a waiting period should be, or how many rounds a magazine should hold, or how cheap a Saturday Night Special should be. But if you want to impact gun crime now, you will demand that Project Exile be implemented in major U.S. cities now.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR STROM THURMOND (1902–2003, R-SC), TO THE U.S. SENATE, JANUARY 5, 1995

Let me first say that I strongly support our Constitutional right to own firearms under the Second Amendment. However, I do not believe this is an absolute right which would allow convicted criminals and other miscreants to lawfully own firearms. In fact, federal law currently prohibits gun ownership by those persons who are, among other things, a fugitive from justice, convicted of a felony, addicted to controlled substances, an illegal alien, or those who have been committed to a mental institution.

Restrictions on gun ownership have been debated by the U.S. Congress and state legislatures for some time. It is my belief that efforts to fight crime are best served by focusing on the criminal element and not with gun control legislation. Criminals should know that when they break the law there will be swift apprehension, prosecution, and punishment. This must be a virtual certainty and not just a mere possibility.

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JACK KINGSTON (1955–, R-GA), TO THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 18, 1994

I think because there is emotion, it is important for members of Congress to look at gun control not based on philosophical bias but based on empirical data and objectivity.…

I am going to talk about an article [David B. Kopel's “The Allure of Foreign Gun Laws”] that was in the March Journal of Medicine, which is the publication of the Georgia Association of Medicine.…

In it [Kopel] talks about countries that have strict gun control laws and what it has meant in terms of the crime rate. … Today you cannot own a gun or rifle in Japan. You can own a shotgun only through very rigorous licensing laws. Is it a safe country? It certainly is a safe country. They have a very low crime rate. What does that mean? Maybe if we look at it at first glance, get rid of the guns and you get rid of the crime problem, if you only look at the law and the crime rate.

… Switzerland … actually has a lower murder rate than Japan. They have strict gun control laws, but in a completely different way. Every male in Switzerland has to join the militia. If you are between the age of twenty and fifty and you are male, you are a member of the militia. You spend three or four weeks per year training, and as part of your duty in the militia you are given a fully automatic assault rifle which you take home. You do not leave that at the National Guard armory for weekend duties. You do not pick it up for your three weeks of summer training. You take that home to suburban Zurich or wherever you live and keep it at home. Every male must be proficient in marksmanship. Every male between the ages of twenty and fifty will get tested on marksmanship.

In a country which is about two-thirds the size of West Virginia, there are over 3,000 shooting ranges. Ammunition, while we have one proposal right now to tax it, is subsidized in Switzerland. To get a handgun or rifle, there is a very easy permitting process. Just about any adult can

get one. You can get an anti-tank gun, anti-aircraft gun, and you can buy some types of cannons. This is just the folks on the street.

I would submit that they are not more responsible, they are not safer, and they are not smarter, but what they do have in Switzerland, and they also have in Japan, is a strong family structure, tightly knit communities, and good relationships from generation to generation. In short, in these two countries culturally young people are socialized into noncriminal behavior.…

If we just superficially kid ourselves and say we are going to get rid of the guns, we are going to get rid of the problems, the statistics do not show that at all. They show it to be a cultural socializing process which we are not doing a good job at in America, particularly in the inner cities, where we have the highest murder rates.

In Britain, they have very tough gun control laws. They have had those … for about thirty or forty years … despite that, in a country where only four percent of the households legally have guns, their murder rates are higher now than they were before the strict gun control laws went into effect.

Let us talk about Jamaica because one of the things we hear so often from Second Amendment proponents is that you are not necessarily owning a gun to defend yourself against a burglar, but you are doing it to defend yourselves against the government.

In 1974, Jamaica enacted very strict gun control laws, which include house-to-house searches randomly, secret trials, detention, incommunicado, mandatory life sentences for possession of a single bullet, very strict gun control laws. What happened? Violent crime dropped significantly for about six months, but then, within a year, it went back up to the level it was before the gun control laws, and in fact has been increasing since.

What is the most significant is that one-third of the murders in Jamaica were perpetrated by the police. Think about that in terms of the Second Amendment people who are saying, [people] “have to worry about the government, not just the burglar.” … Why is it that police can have guns, but you and I and the average American citizen cannot?