I will defend the constitution website has merged with Articlesteller.com. Following are our services’ details & assets. You can also check our other partners and the top class brands offering the best products with mouthwatering discounts as well.
We would like to thank multiple popular women who have supported us in our cause including Rihana who is one of the top most popular women in the world.
Also, we would like to thanks our partners Code Promo Airton, Retailescaper.com, Muscle Food Discount Code, Kohl’s $15 Off Coupon, Valvoline Oil Change coupon, Youtube TV Promo Code, others to support us from the beginning.
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
132 Cong. Rec. H1741-06, 1986 WL 780741 (Cong.Rec.)
Congressional Record — House of Representatives
Proceedings and Debates of the 99th Congress, Second Session
Thursday, April 10, 1986
FEDERAL FIREARMS LAW REFORM ACT OF 1986
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 403 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4332
10:06 a.m.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4332) to amend chapter 44-relating to firearms-of title 18, United States Code, and for other purposes, with Mr. RANGEL in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, April 9, 1986, pending was the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, the substitute by the gentleman from Missouri <Mr. VOLKMER> and an amendment to the substitute by the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr. HUGHES>.
One hour of consideration for amendments under the 5-minute rule remains.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey < Mr. HUGHES>.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Missouri <Mr. VOLKMER> rise?
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the allegations from the opponents of the substitute in regard to the interstate sale of handguns is that it would allow massive interstate sales of guns. First, I would like to address that point because it is erroneous. It is a misrepresentation.
Under the substitute, an interstate sale must comply with all the laws of both States and with Federal laws.
Second, only a licensed gun dealer is allowed to make an interstate sale of a gun. Thus, all interstate sales are carried on dealers’ books showing the serial number, the buyer’s identity and residence and the buyer’s drivers license or other ID number.
Third, as far as the claim that truckloads of guns could be bought goes, section 103 continues the existing requirement that a dealer selling more than one handgun to a person in any one week also must report the transaction to the BATF.
Thus, anyone buying a truckload of pistols or even two of them from a dealer has the name, address, and serial number promptly reported to the BATF. The objection is thus specious.
I know that back in 1982 when the then current bill would have allowed transfers by nondealers, Handgun Control, Inc., suggested that a limitation to dealers would make the interstate sales provision enforceable.
I want to point that out again, that back in 1982 when our language in our bill would have permitted transfers by nondealers, the strong opponents to anyone owning handguns, Handgun Control, Inc., suggested a limitation to dealers would make the interstate sales provision enforceable, and that is what we have.
So even the Handgun Control, Inc., said in 1982 that this language in our bill was very enforceable. They even testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that since dealers must undergo a Federal eligibility check before they are licensed, they are subject to continuing Federal oversight and are more familiar with actual laws and procedures, a system that relies on dealers for interstate transfers also helps to reduce the ultimate number of illegal sales.
Well, the substitute relies on dealers for interstate sales, so now they have had to manufacture contradictory nonsense to oppose it, and that is the reason for the amendment. It is specious. It really does not stop criminals from getting handguns. Criminals do not worry about whether it is an interstate purchase or a local purchase. They buy their guns from individuals and we try to prevent that with language in our bill by making it a felony for an individual to sell to a felon or a convicted felon or even an individual. Right now they can do that.
We make that a crime, a Federal crime.
I would also like to point out that in the other body when this amendment was brought up, it was overwhelmingly defeated.
The amendment, such as the present Hughes amendment, was defeated by more than three to one in the Senate and, therefore, it is clear that the amendment does not really stop criminals from getting handguns. It only makes it harder for private individuals, honest citizens, to acquire handguns as well as rifles and shotguns.
The idea that has been put forward that the dealers will not know all State laws and stuff like that again is a specious argument, because even the Judiciary bill and even the amendment that we have before us would allow interstate sales of rifles and shotguns.
Now, in that the dealer is going to have to know what the laws of the other States are for rifles and shotguns. They have to admit that they know those and if they know those, they can know what the handgun laws are in other States, just as easily as you can rifles and shotguns; so that argument that the Judiciary Committee makes is also specious.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to again voice my overwhelming opposition to this amendment, because it really does not prevent criminals from getting handguns. All it does is try to prevent lawabiding honest citizens from getting handguns.
Mr. MORRISON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, there has been agreement in the House and there was agreement between the committee and the gentleman from Missouri <Mr. VOLKMER> that there should be a relaxation of interstate sales with respect to long guns, but we are not talking here about long guns. We are talking about handguns and it is in this context that this amendment is offered to remove from the Volkmer substitute the relaxation of interstate sales with respect to handguns.
Now, why is this important? First, gun dealers would have to find, know, and understand thousands of State and local laws. We know that is virtually impossible.
What that means is that under this provision if it becomes law, the sale of handguns interstate to those with bad intentions will become more likely. There is no reason that we need to take this risk. Second, the provision as it is is unenforceable and will remove from the States their ability to prosecute gun dealers who sell guns to citizens illegal as a practical matter. The burden would then be upon the Federal Government to pick up the investigation and prosecution in these cases.
This is a responsibility which the Federal Government just does not have the resources for. These are matters that can and should be enforced as local law, yet the passage of the Volkmer substitute, unamended, will make that an impossibility.
The requirement that fails willfully violates State and local laws makes it next to impossible that there be a conviction.
Finally, the Volkmer substitute, unàmended, would open the door for the itinerant would-be assassins, like John Hinckley and Arthur Bremmer and other felons, to pick up guns as they travel around stalking their victims. Interstate sales will make it easier to buy guns with false ID’s because dealers are not going to be familiar with the various forms of identification in other States. The police have called this the “cop killer” provision. It should be stricken, and the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr. HUGHES> should be adopted.
10:15 a.m.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr. HUGHES>.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a critical amendment, and perhaps it is the most critical amendment. Lots of people characterized some we voted on yesterday that way, but I think, personally, this one is.
We are talking about, in this legislation, removing restrictions and impediments on sportsmen, to be able to go out into the field, and carry their weapons through States without impediment, to be able to do things that we found in the course of the last few years, since the 1968 Gun Control Act was adopted, are not necessary to law enforcement and would be helpful if we changed the laws in order to allow sportsmen a better opportunity.
That is what the thrust of the committee bill and really the thrust of the Volkmer substitute is all about. This amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey is offering now to maintain the present law with regard to the interstate sale of handguns is an amendment which is important for law enforcement, and is an amendment to a provision in the Volkmer substitute, which provision is not at all necessary for sportsmen to be able to go about their business in ways which they want to do. I think it is essential that we come down on this amendment, on the ballot, in favor of law enforcement. Let us talk about that for a minute.
We talk about the question of the handgun sale and we talk about the question of the right to bear arms, and we talk about the question of the criminal’s ability to get arms. We have to balance all of those considerations in the discussion.
When we talk about the criminal, most people, including this Member, will gladly accede to the face in the argument that most criminals will be able to obtain a handgun regardless of restrictions or prohibitions, the laws, the penalties, or anything else, especially the hardened criminal and the organized criminal. Consequently, I have always opposed the ban proposals on sales of handguns. I have opposed the waiting periods, the cooling-off periods, because I think that impairs too much on the right to bear arms.
But the question I asked my police chief, several police chiefs in my district, “What do you say in response to those who would charge that criminals can get handguns anyway, so why restrict the interstate sale of handguns, as the law now does?”
They say, “Bill, you are right. The criminal, especially the hardened criminals, or at least most of them, will be able to. But it is a question of making it easier for them to be able to. If you change the present law, you are going to make access that much easier for a criminal.”
It is going to be next to impossible for every gun dealer in State X, Y, or Z, Minnesota, North Dakota, to keep up with, despite the regulations promulgated and sent to them, the laws of Florida, New Jersey, and so on. It is going to be easier for someone to come in with a driver’s license that is forged that they do not recognize, to show identity, and so on, or whatever it may be. It is going to be easier to get that handgun in a State where the dealer just is not that personally familiar with what it looks like, what the documents look like, just through who you are or where you are from.
Consequently, the safeguards that I know that the gentleman from Missouri < Mr. VOLKMER> has put into his substitute in hopes that he can protect this sale provision just simply, in my judgment, will not work. When I balance the interest involved and the concerns of our law enforcement community, I have to come down on the side of the Hughes amendment in this case. I happen to believe that it is absolutely essential for the future protection of society against the criminal that we have on the books the present laws that exist, and it is in no way an impediment to those who want to go hunting, or certainly a very minor inconvenience to have the laws the way they are with regard to the interstate sale of handguns.
I remind my colleagues that we have already changed the law in both of the proposals before us today with regard to long guns, shotguns, and rifles, so that that interstate purchase will be available, and so forth. I think it is essential, as I said, that we not change the law with regard to handguns, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote “yes,” in favor of the amendment before us at the present time.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, we only have about 50 minutes left to debate, and I wonder if we can agree to limit debate on this amendment to not more than 5 more minutes, on this particular amendment, and to limit debate on each of the additional amendments to no more than 10 minutes. Mr. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I would be glad to do that. I think that would be a fair thing to do.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Jersey have a unanimous-consent request? Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to limit debate on this amendment to 10 minutes, and on any additional amendments offered to 10 minutes, so that we can at least get to a number of the amendments that have been noticed by other Members.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would like to ask the chairman, it is the chairman’s concern, as it is mine, I believe, in his request, that we only have a few minutes left, maybe 50 minutes or so altogether. There are any number of amendments that Members would like to offer besides the one now pending.
In all sense of fairness, some kind of time accord needs to be worked out.
Is that not the gentleman’s objective in this proposal?
Mr. HUGHES. If the gentleman will yield, that is the purpose of it.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. I think it is fair.
Mr. HUGHES. I would hope that Members would not object.
Mr. ROEMER. I am constrained to object, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my request.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his request.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise to speak in favor of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr. HUGHES>.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday I voted pretty consistently against the amendments that were offered by the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr. HUGHES>. In doing so, I recognized that I did not feel that they were that important as far as law and order were concerned, but I think we have come to a point now in the debate where the amendment that is before us is a very important amendment to law enforcement.
I would urge my colleagues, my colleague who voted along with the Volkmer substitute and tried to keep it pure yesterday, that they take another close look. This has got to be the key vote with regard to whether we want any controls whatsoever over the out-of-State sales of arms.
I do not believe and did not believe and still do not believe that the question of transporting handguns is really that important an amendment, and I thought it was really going to be more of an impairment to honest people than it was going to be a tool for law enforcement, but this is most important. It is most important that we allow the States to keep their own laws for its own citizens, and those of us who do believe in States rights cooperate. I would urge all of my colleagues who went along with the NRA position yesterday, as I did, that this is the time to part company; that on this amendment, and at least one other regarding silencers, we have got to go back to some reasonable controls.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. ROEMER. I thank the gentleman both for his statement and for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman’s statement. There were many in this body yesterday who, torn between two broad-brush approaches to a difficult subject, came down on the side of Volkmer.
But there were reservations within many of us who did that about this specific point in the law. I agree with the gentleman from Florida that in terms of law enforcement, this is a key vote on this bill. What the Hughes amendment would do would be to keep the law as is in regard to interstate sales of handguns. Since 1968, we have had that prohibition in the law, and the basis of the prohibition, Mr. Chairman, was that handguns are difficult to find, easy to conceal, and are often dangerous. While they have legitimate uses in the world, they are different from long guns. One of the things that we did in the law was require a local thread for the purchase of a handgun. That was the basis of the 1968 law. It is in force today, and we ought to stick with the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr. HUGHES> to make sure that when this body does its work today we keep the 1968 law the same with regard to interstate sales of handguns.
Point No. 2, if I could. I have heard no reason, no solid, substantive reason, as to why this law should be changed. Until I hear that, I stand with the gentleman from Florida and ask my colleagues who yesterday voted with the Volkmer broad brush to come back and clean it up on this targeted issue. Let us give law enforcement officers a chance. Let us hold the 1968 law on the interstate sale of handguns just like it is today.
Mr. SHAW. I thank the gentleman for a very fine statement.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of my colleagues to recognize that this is the key vote for law enforcement. This is the most important vote that we are going to have all day, and I would urge a “yes” vote on the Hughes amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike t