Brief Debate In The Senate On DC Gun Bill

From the Congressional Record, September 25, 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a very important issue, and that is gun rights, the second amendment gun rights for our country.

As we are dealing with the financial stabilization program which is being negotiated, the continuing resolution, which will come over from the House shortly, we do have time to talk about some of the other issues that are so important for our country.

I think the second amendment rights of people who live in the District of Columbia are very important. There was a Supreme Court case, a landmark ruling, that was made by the Supreme Court of the United States a couple months ago that said: The District of Columbia gun ban was unconstitutional.

Many of us in Congress helped with an amicus brief, a brief to the Court signed by a majority of the Members of the House and the Senate, that asked that the Court overturn this DC gun ban because it was the most restrictive outright gun ban in all of America, and it clearly violated the rights of the people of the District of Columbia.

The Court agreed. Now many of us who were hoping to pursue this right for the people of the District of Columbia, which is under the auspices of Congress, waited to see what the District City Council would do. We hoped they would do the right thing and adhere to the Supreme Court ruling, which affirmed that their ban on the ownership of handguns was unconstitutional.

The District then came out with an almost incomprehensible ordinance that does continue to make it very difficult for someone to exercise their constitutional right to own a gun.

The District allows registration of pistols for use in self-defense within the applicant's home. So it does not allow the ownership of a handgun in a person's business, to have self-defense in their business, but it does allow it in the home.

But then the ordinance goes on to say that it is a policy of the District of Columbia that firearms should be stored unloaded and either disassembled or locked, which is the complete opposite result of the original ruling.

I do not think anyone in America would consider an unlocked, unloaded gun to be potentially used for self-defense if someone is entering their home illegally.

The firearm registration requirements are onerous. As a condition for registration, the District requires applicants to pay separate, unlimited fees for filing their registration, applicants have their mandatory fingerprints processed, and have their handguns run through a ballistic imaging process.

What we are trying to do now is say you would have the ability to own a handgun for your personal use in your home for self-defense for you and your family. We also want to authorize DC residents to buy handguns from licensed dealers in Maryland or Virginia because, of course, there is only one gun dealer in the District of Columbia because there has been such a shortage of guns that a gun owner would sell because you could not have one.

Because there is a current Federal law against interstate handgun sales, only Congress can authorize this. So the only way a person will have the ability to buy from a licensed dealer--and a licensed dealer must pass a record check by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; all of that would be enforced, but we do need to have the ability for someone to have a reasonable place to go if they are going to buy a gun to protect themselves and their family.

The bottom line is, as soon as we have representation on the floor by both parties, I intend to ask unanimous consent that we proceed to consideration of the bill. Now, the bill is H.R. 6842. It passed the House overwhelmingly last week. We want to take up that bill. In fact, I have a letter to Senator Reid signed by 47 Members of the Senate, and I am asking that be submitted for the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, DC, September 19, 2008.
Hon. HARRY REID,
Majority Leader, U.S Senate,
Washington, DC.

DEAR LEADER REID: On June 26, 2008. the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling affirming the Second Amendment right to bear arms as an individual and constitutionally protected right. In District of Columbia v. Heller. the court affirmed that the District of Columbia's ban on ownership of handguns was an unconstitutional restriction on that right. The majority held ``that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.''

For more than thirty years. the District of Columbia has subjected residents to the most prohibitive gun control laws of any city in the nation, requiring rifles and shotguns to he registered, stored unloaded, and either locked or disassembled. Despite the Court's ruling in June, the District of Columbia city council has continued to exact onerous and unconstitutional firearm regulations on law-abiding residents.

This week, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act. This bipartisan bill was overwhelmingly approved with a vote 266-152. We ask you to ensure that D.C. residents do not have to wait any longer to realize their constitutional rights by allowing the full Senate to consider H.R. 6842 before the 110th Congress concludes.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison; Jon Tester; Saxby Chambliss; Judd Gregg; Richard Burr, John Ensign; Johnny Isakson; John E. Sununu; John McCain; Lisa Murkowski; Jim DeMint; ------; Kit Bond; John Cornyn; Mike Enzi; Ted Stevens; Orrin Hatch; Chuck Grassley; Max Baucus; Larry E. Craig; Mel Martinez; Thad Cochran; Roger Wicker; Sam Brownback; Lindsey Graham; Pat Roberts; John Thune; Richard Shelby; Mike Crapo; David Vitter; John Barrasso; Elizabeth Dole; George V. Voinovich; Pete V. Domenici; Jim Inhofe; Wayne Allard; Norm Coleman; E. Benjamin Nelson; Tim Johnson; Bob Corker; Lamar Alexander; Jon Kyl; Gordon H. Smith; Olympia Snowe; Susan M. Collins; Mary Landrieu, Mitch McConnell.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Forty-seven of our Members have asked the majority leader to allow this bill to be taken up so we can pass it and send it to the President and assure that the people of the District of Columbia have the same second amendment right that is allowed to every other person in our country. So I would ask whether the Chair is able to speak for the majority

[Page: S9442]

or if you prefer I wait for another person to come to the floor. I can do that or I can do it now.

I will withhold. I ask unanimous consent that as soon as the leader is finished, I be recognized again to make my motion.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Republican leader is recognized.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6842, a bill to restore second amendment rights in the District of Columbia. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and a motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

This is the bill that was passed by the House last week by an overwhelming margin, and I move my unanimous consent request.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is an attempt to write the DC gun laws and to take away the authority of the elected government of the District of Columbia to write its own laws relative to firearms consistent with the new Supreme Court decision. If the Senator from Texas were making such a proposal for the city of Dallas or the city of Houston or the city of San Antonio, it would have some credibility because that is her State. But to make this request that we would overrule the power of the elected government of DC to implement the Supreme Court decision is inappropriate.

On behalf of Senators who have signed a public letter in opposition to the bill that passed the House, Senators Lautenberg, Feinstein, Menendez, Mikulski, Akaka, Jack Reed, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ben Cardin, and myself, I object.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me just respond by saying that it is the prerogative of Congress to make laws that are directly appropriate for the District of Columbia. I have been on the DC Appropriations Subcommittee; I actually was chairman when Senator Durbin was ranking member, so he knows well that we pass laws for the District of Columbia because it is the District of Columbia, and we all appropriate money for the city to function. We have introduced this bill because the District of Columbia failed to protect the second amendment rights of the citizens of the city over which Congress has the ultimate responsibility.

It is entirely within the role of Congress to address an issue where a city is not protecting the constitutional rights of its constituents, over which the Congress has the authority. It would not be the same in the city of Chicago or the city of Dallas or other cities in our country. The District of Columbia is a unique city in that it is overseen by Congress. Congress has acted in the past over many issues where the District has fallen short, and I would say Senator Durbin and I have done quite a bit to strengthen the government of the District of Columbia and make it more financially responsible.

So I am disappointed that the Senator has objected. I have submitted for the Record a letter to Senator Reid from 47 of our Members who asked Senator Reid to let this bill come forward because, in fact, the District of Columbia acted--and I waited. I did not pursue this until the District of Columbia City Council acted because I hoped

[Page: S9444] GPO's PDF

they would do the right thing. Unfortunately, they put up so many barriers to a person's right to self-defense in their home by requiring that a handgun be locked and unloaded, and that is not protection--not in Chicago, not in Dallas, not in Houston, and not in the District of Columbia--nor can we overcome the Federal law that does not allow interstate sales of guns across State borders because in the District of Columbia, one should be able to go to Maryland or Virginia and buy from a licensed gun dealer to be able to pursue their right to protect their home and their family in the District of Columbia.

So the bill is necessary for the rights of the people of the District of Columbia over which Congress does have ultimate responsibility, and it is my hope that we will do what the House did overwhelmingly and pass this bill and send it to the President. I will continue to pursue opportunities to make that happen. Thank you, Mr. President.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The assistant majority leader.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I first came to this city over 40 years ago as a student. It was a time before the District of Columbia had home rule. There was a certain paternalism felt by Congress toward the city of Washington, DC. Of course, the city of Washington, DC, does not have a voting representative in the Senate, and the delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, who serves in the House, has limited authority to vote in committee but not on the floor. So DC does not have a voice in the House or Senate Chambers, despite the fact that some 600,000 taxpaying Americans live in our Capital City. I think that is wrong. I have consistently supported giving DC representation in Congress because I believe these Americans living in this city deserve the same rights to have a vote and be heard as those who live in Chicago or Dallas or Houston. But that has been the course of history.

Many people who come to Congress, always longing to be a mayor, get a chance to be a mayor over the District of Columbia. So this poor Capital City has 535 would-be mayors in the House and Senate who want to write ordinances for the city of Washington, DC, some of whom have been mayors at home, some of whom have lost in elections for mayor, but they are going to come here and be the mayor of Washington, DC, in addition to being a Member of the House and Senate.

There was another event that occurred shortly after I arrived in Washington--in fact, within a few weeks after I arrived--and that event occurred on November 22, 1963, in the city of Dallas, TX, when a great man and wonderful President, John Kennedy, was assassinated because another man took a long-range

rifle and shot at his motorcade as he passed through that city, mortally wounding the President of the United States and claiming his life. It was a tragedy which those of us who lived through will never forget as long as we live, and it is a reminder that even if you recognize and respect rights under the second amendment--and I do--there have to be reasonable limits in terms of firearms and weapons. Otherwise, the Lee Harvey Oswalds of tomorrow can literally menace those who visit this city.

I just left a meeting with the President of Afghanistan, a wonderful man who risks his life in Kabul every day to give his people in Afghanistan a chance for freedom. He is under heavy security and guard not only in Afghanistan but in the United States. Are we going to put ourselves in a position to say--as the bill that the Senator from Texas wanted to bring to the floor says--that we are going to repeal the District of Columbia's laws on semiautomatic and assault weapons?

Are we going to now say that Congress will mandate that weapons which could be dangerous for those who live here and those who visit here in this Capital City, that we will decide in Congress which weapons will be allowed and which will not be allowed? That is what this bill does. That is exactly what it does. It goes much further than the Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller reached just a few weeks ago.

Let me be specific. The bill would severely undermine DC gun laws far beyond the scope of that Supreme Court decision. That decision invalidated the District of Columbia's handgun ban and found that the second amendment confers an individual right. I don't quarrel with that, but it did not require the invalidation of all other types of laws, as this bill does. In fact, Justice Scalia--no liberal--Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion in Heller, specifically noted that a wide range of gun laws are ``presumptively lawful.'' Everything from laws ``forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places'' to ``conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.''

Justice Scalia, in acknowledging that the second amendment creates an individual right to firearms, still made it clear that individual jurisdictions--States, local units of government--would still have the authority to forbid the carrying of firearms in sensitive places and to impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The bill that Senator Hutchison wants us to impose on the District of Columbia, however, repeals the prohibition of the District of Columbia of carrying guns in public, directly counter to the language of Justice Scalia; repeals DC's gun registration requirements, though it is clear in the language of the Supreme Court decision that jurisdictions such as Washington have the right to impose conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms; repeals the requirement of the District of Columbia that guns are not sold to those who abuse them in crimes or those who are mentally unstable. The provisions of the bill which Senator Hutchison would impose on the District of Columbia repeals their right to stop people with mental illness from buying firearms or those with a history of commission of felonies. Does that make sense? Does it make sense in Washington? Does it make sense in Chicago? Does it make sense in Dallas or Houston? It does not make sense.

To come here and say that we are going to write the DC gun law, we are going to decide the safety of 600,000 people and every visitor to this city, is plain wrong. Give the city of Washington the same opportunity that the city of Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Chicago asks: to write laws consistent with this Supreme Court decision. They have to. Ultimately, any effort to do otherwise is going to be overturned by that Court. But to impose, as the Childers bill would--Representative Childers of Mississippi introduced this bill--as this bill would, is to go too far.

I will object to this because I think this city of Washington, as well as the cities of Chicago and Springfield, IL, which I represent, and the cities of Texas have the right to write their laws to protect their citizens. When we come here and impose on them requirements and restrictions that are not being imposed on cities in our own State, it goes too far.

I yield the floor.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is recognized.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think it was not quite accurate to suggest that repealing the DC's gun ban and all of the onerous restrictions put on it weren't replaced in the law to require that there be licensed gun dealers from which you could purchase a gun.

Of course, they would be licensed with all the Federal requirements, all the State requirements in Maryland and the State of Virginia. Of course, that would be a part of this law.

I have to say, I am not understanding why the distinguished Senator from Illinois continues to say the Congress does not have a right to impose our will on the District of Columbia. I have the Constitution of the United States. Article I gives the exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia to the Congress ``To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District. .....''

The District of Columbia was created to be the seat of government over which Congress would have exclusive jurisdiction. It would not apply to any other State where the Constitution says the States rights prevail. But the District of Columbia is a special city, which I know the Senator from Illinois knows. It is not 535 people trying to usurp the rights of the mayor. It is 535 people who are trying to exercise our responsibility to have laws in the District of Columbia that would adhere to

[Page:
S9445] GPO's PDF

the constitutional rights of the citizens here. It is our responsibility, and that is what we are trying to do.

Of course, I know the Senator from Illinois knows it has been clearly upheld that preventing certain areas for the carriage of guns, qualifications on sales, bans on automatics have been declared reasonable. I know the Senator from Illinois knows that. Those would be provided for, of course, because it is Federal law.

What we are trying to do is give the basic rights, which is our responsibility as Congress, to the citizens of this District to keep and bear arms, to have the individual right to have a handgun in their home to protect their families, not a handgun that is locked and unloaded, which is what the District of Columbia Council has put out as its response to the Supreme Court case that declared their ban unconstitutional; not to provide so many restrictions and costs on registering a gun that it becomes very difficult and creates a restriction on those second amendment rights; and last but not least, giving them the right in this one instance to buy a gun across State lines because this District is bordered by Virginia and Maryland, where there are gun dealers who are licensed, who do have the correct restrictions and background checks in place to be able to do that because there are not gun dealers in the District of Columbia who would give the proper access to people who would want to protect themselves and their homes.

When I look at the statistics in the District of Columbia, I look at the person who is robbed and murdered in their home. I look at the policeman who is shot in the face doing his duty in this District. I think people should have the right in this District to protect their businesses with a handgun, which is barred by the District of Columbia, and to have a firearm in their homes unlocked and able to protect their families from an intruder.

We did not get to bring up this legislation today. When the House of Representatives passes something 266 to 152, that makes a clear statement that this Congress is trying to do the right thing to help the District of Columbia residents have their second amendment rights.

I hope at some point the Senate will take up this bill that has been passed by the House overwhelmingly and send it to the President, who I know will sign it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The assistant majority leader is recognized.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the police chief of the District of Columbia, Cathy Lanier, testified before the House of Representatives and said this bill, which Senator Hutchison is trying to impose on the District of Columbia, would make it far more difficult for the policemen in the District of Columbia and Federal agencies ``to ensure safety and security in the Nation's capital,'' and she cited particular concerns about providing security for the thousands of dignitaries, motorcades, and special events that occur in our Nation's capital.

I wish to listen to those who are in uniform risking their lives in Washington, DC, to keep it safe for the people who live and visit here. They should be given the opportunity to make sure the laws that are written are written in a way to be consistent with the Supreme Court decision, consistent with the individual right to bear arms but also consistent with the standards that Justice Scalia mentioned.

The Childers bill that Senator Hutchison would say must be the law of the District of Columbia would repeal the District of Columbia's prohibition of carrying guns in public. That runs directly counter to the language of Justice Scalia, who said that States and cities could impose laws ``forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places.'' Does that mean we would be prohibited from searching people coming into the Capitol complex and taking their guns away under the Hutchison provision? I am not sure I know the answer to that question, but I think it is worth thinking about carefully before we consider imposing this gun ordinance from the House.

I am also concerned about the fact that this bill would repeal the right of Washington, DC, to regulate gun sales. I don't want guns to end up in the hands of the mentally ill and those with a history of felonies, violent felonies. Does that make you feel safer?

My State of Illinois, similar to the State of Virginia, recently went through this tragic episode, where someone brought a gun into college last year at Northern Illinois University, killing innocent people. It also happened across the river at Virginia Tech.

Do I think in Illinois and in Virginia we want to make sure on college campuses and other sensitive places that people do not carry firearms? Of course, I do. If I am going to send a child of mine or grandchild to a university, the first thing I want is for them to come home alive. If it means putting reasonable standards so people cannot carry guns into those surroundings, we should do it. Why would we create a different circumstance for the District of Columbia? I went to school at Georgetown University. If Georgetown wants to make certain that students do not carry guns on to certain elements of the campus, I stand behind them and I will fight for them. It is consistent with the Supreme Court decision.

I wish to tell you something, the Childers bill that Senator Hutchison would impose on Washington repeals Washington's right to prohibit the carrying of guns in public. That goes too far. To take this provision that has been written by the gun lobby and impose it on the District of Columbia and on all the people who live here is wrong.

The Senator is right; in the past, Congress has done just about anything you can think imaginable when it comes to imposing laws on the District of Columbia. Many Members of Congress who never served as mayors get their chance to pick on this city right here, to write Federal legislation that they would never think of introducing back home for their own hometowns. Let's do it for Washington; let's go ahead and try a little experiment. That is not fair, it is not just, and it is not American.

These people in this town deserve a voice in their own future, to elect people who speak for them and represent them, as we do all across America, to have a chance, as Delegate Norton has asked for, only 6 months to implement this new Supreme Court decision is not unreasonable. I know there are those who want it done today, and I am anxious to see it done, too, but I am not going to try to impose a law on the District of Columbia that is unfair, that creates insecurity where we have been warned by the police chief that it makes it less safe for visitors to the Nation's capital. That is irresponsible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter, dated September 22, 2008, to our majority leader from some of my colleagues expressing concern about this legislation.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

U.S. SENATE,

Washington, DC, September 22, 2008.
Hon. HARRY REID,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.
Washington, DC.

DEAR LEADER REID: We are writing to express our concern about H.R. 6842, the ``National Capital Security and Safety Act,'' which would override the laws of the District of Columbia on the ownership of firearms in the District. The bill passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday, September 17, and we understand it will be placed on the Senate calendar without being referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee or the Judiciary Committee.

This legislation would have a considerable impact on safety and security in the nation's capital. In addition, we understand that it makes at least one significant change to federal criminal law. As a result, we are concerned about proceeding to this bill without hearing from local and federal law enforcement officials and other interested parties. We also believe there should be an opportunity to offer and debate amendments to this bill.

In short, this legislation is too important to consider according to a truncated process. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Frank R. Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, Robert Menendez, Barbara A. Mikulski, Daniel K. Akaka, Jack Reed, Ted Kennedy, John F. Kerry, Chris Dodd, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ben Cardin.

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Texas is recognized.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to make sure the record shows that, No. 1, it is the constitutional responsibility of Congress to assure that

[Page: S9446] GPO's PDF

the District of Columbia residents have their second amendment rights. That is our highest calling. It is our highest responsibility. It is not usurping anyone's right in the District of Columbia City Council. It is standing for the rights of the people of the District of Columbia, which is our responsibility to do.

Secondly, I want the record to be very clear that every gun dealer in the District of Columbia--there is one--in the State of Virginia, and in the State of Maryland all have the same requirements that are Federal law that would have to be adhered to that would require a record check by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. There would be no exceptions to that. Having the background check would be essential for anyone to purchase a gun under our law or any law of the United States.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized as in morning business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.