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 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, there is near unanimity on that side and on this side on this amendment. Please, I urge my colleagues, it is an important amendment. Everything that has been said is all that is going to be said.
There are other amendments. They have importance. Let us not beat a dead horse. We know the vote on this. We know where it is going. We know what the issue is. Let us stop. There are other amendments people have on important issues.
I would urge my colleagues to take a vote on this issue now.
1025
Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. FISH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment to prohibit the interstate purchase of handguns for several reasons. The law enforcement community sees this particular provision of the Volkmer substitute as a serious threat to its safety and its effectiveness in solving crime.
Although I support the provisions in the Volkmer substitute that would, for the first time, permit the purchase of rifles and shotguns outside of a buyer’s State if the purchase is legal in the State of the purchase and the purchaser’s resident State, I cannot agree to the application of these provisions for handguns. First, the local laws are so varied with regard to handguns that compliance is doubtful even where dealers do their utmost to comply with the law. Second, handguns are more often used in crime, and the ability to trace these weapons to the criminal is jeopardized if the handguns are purchased anywhere in the United States.
I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FISH. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I too want to urge support for this particular amendment. Let us face it, we gamble whatever we do on any of these amendments. It is a gamble, but here we are gambling on the side of at least protection that the 1968 law has thus far given. Maybe it is not perfect, but why change it? Why loosen it?
I am in favor of the amendment and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, a lot of people have said this is key to law enforcement. Others have said give us justification as to why we ought to change the 1968 law.
I guess the only justification I can give you is that State lines ought not serve as a barrier for the sale of firearms unless the laws of the State prohibit such sales. That is, I guess, a States right argument. But it is something that we have lived with, that does work, and the dealers can understand. That is a chance, I think, and that is what we have changed in the Volkmer substitute. If the State or a community has enacted a restrictive firearm acquisition law, it would be respected and protected under the Volkmer substitute which could become Federal law. If a State has chosen not to enact such a law, then the Federal law no longer would impose. To limit interstate sales to long guns only is nothing but an unjustified Federal interference, in my opinion, in State affairs.
The fact that it has been in place for 18 years does not necessarily make it acceptable. When you examine the facts of the law as they have been administered over those 18 years, I think it is very hard to argue that this is a panacea in law enforcement, because it simply is not the case.
Because of an overwhelming majority of interstate firearm sales, like all other interstate sales occur primarily in contiguous States, and we know of situations, border relationships within communities, across the river from another community, and it just so happens that one may be rural and the other may be metropolitan. That river may be the boundary, and that is where those rural people go to buy firearms if they so choose.
I think this is an interference at the Federal level, and we do not object, nor in any way do we object to State law, to local community law, to a city ordinance. And under present law, long guns may be purchased in contiguous States. For some reason, we have to believe that there is a firearm that is more dangerous than another firearm. Depending on who holds it and who uses it is the determiner of danger to the citizen out there, and we all know that.
I would simply believe that the Volkmer substitute offers a reasonable compromise and does not take Federal law and cram it down on the top of State law when it should not be necessary.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAIG. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. The gentleman has pointed out something that I think is very important, and that is that the substitute bill, the language in that permits interstate sales of handguns and does not in any way change any local law or State law or ordinance. If any one State, if every State wished to ban interstate sale of handguns within their borders, all they have to do is pass a law that says no one but a resident of X State can buy a handgun in X State. That stops it, and this provision in our bill does not abrogate that in any way.
I would also like to point out that back in 1982 Ferris Lucas, who was speaking in behalf of the
National Sheriffs Association before the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the entire existing Federal gun law makes it a felony for a private citizen, and they still do, to give or sell a firearm to a resident of a different State, even though this would violate the laws of neither State. And the present law does that, even though you may not violate the laws of either State. You still violate the Federal law. If my brother, who lives in the State of Washington, was to come to visit me, and he would like to acquire a handgun and is qualified in both States-by the way, he just retired from the Federal Bureau of Corrections, so I do not think he is a crook in any way. He is a law-abiding citizen in every respecthe could not purchase that handgun in the State of Missouri, even though he qualified both in the State of Washington and in the State of Missouri. And you would make it difficult.
All you are trying to do is make it more difficult for that private citizen to acquire that handgun. You are not making it any more difficult for crooks to acquire handguns. You are not making it any more difficult because the crook is not going to go into that dealer and buy the handgun. He is going to go to the private individual, to the black market and get his handgun. That is where he gets all of them.
Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. ROBINSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ROBINSON. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief this morning. I rise in opposition to the Hughes amendment, and in favor of the Volkmer substitute.
I have in my hand a book published by the U.S. Department of Justice, entitled “Crime in the United States.” I think all of my colleagues need to read this because clearly the U.S. Department of Justice does not consider firearm laws to be a crime factor. Nowhere in this book can one find where firearm laws are considered to be a crime-causing factor.
Furthermore, as I mentioned yesterday, in a recent survey commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice, 69 percent of criminals surveyed did not carry firearms, but knives, razors, brass knuckles, et cetera. The truth of the matter is over 40 percent of the homicides committed in this country are committed with other objects and instruments other than firearms. For example, we know that in 40 percent of the homicides, the murder weapon was a knife, club, hammer, some object, poison, explosive, fire, narcotics, drowning, strangulation, and other factors.
The bottom line is simply this: Most criminals in this country do not abide by the Gun Control Act of 1968.
In closing, I want to remind my colleagues that since the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act, we have seen homicides go up over a period of time by 50 percent.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I rise in strong support of the amendment. It is a key law enforcement amendment.
We have 200-some-odd-thousand dealers around this country. They cannot possibly know the laws of each State. We are just going to proliferate the sale of handguns to disqualified individuals.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr. HUGHES> to the amendment, as amended, offered by the gentleman from Missouri <Mr. VOLKMER> as a substitute for the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended. The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. VOLKMER), there were-ayes 17, noes 15.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 233, noes 184, not voting 17, as follows:
<Roll No. 72>
AYES-233
Ackerman Akaka Anderson Annunzio Anthony Applegate Aspin Atkins Barnard Barnes Bateman Bates
Bedell Beilenson Bennett Bentley Bereuter Biaggi Boggs Boland Bonior (MI) Bonker Borski Bosco Boxer Broomfield Brown (CA) Burton (CA) Carper Carr Chandler Clay Coats Coelho Coleman (MO)
Collins Conte Conyers Coughlin Courter Coyne Crockett de la Garza Dellums DeWine Dicks DioGuardi
Dixon Donnelly Dorgan (ND) Downey Durbin Dwyer Dymally Early Eckart (OH) Edgar Edwards (CA)
Edwards (OK) Evans (IA) Evans (IL) Fascell Fawell Fazio Feighan Fish Florio Foglietta Ford (MI) Fowler Frank Frenzel Frost Fuqua Gallo Garcia Gejdenson Gekas Gibbons Gilman Glickman Gonzalez Goodling
Gradison Green Guarini Hall (OH) Hatcher Hawkins Hayes Henry Hertel Hiler Hillis Howard Hoyer
Hughes Hutto Hyde Jacobs Jeffords Johnson Jones (NC) Kaptur Kasich Kastenmeier Kennelly Kildee
Kindness Kleczka Kostmayer LaFalce Lantos Leach (IA) Lehman (CA) Lehman (FL) Leland Lent Levin
(MI) Levine (CA) Lewis (FL) Lipinski Long Lowery (CA) Lowry (WA) Lundine Lungren MacKay Madigan
Manton Markey Martin (IL) Martinez Matsui Mavroules Mazzoli McCandless McCollum McGrath McHugh
McKinney Meyers Mica Michel Mikulski Miller (CA) Miller (WA) Mineta Mitchell Moakley Molinari Moody
Morrison (CT) Morrison (WA) Mrazek Myers Neal Nelson Nielson Nowak Oakar Owens Oxley Panetta
Parris Pease Pepper Petri Porter Price Pursell Rangel Ray Regula Ridge Rinaldo Ritter Rodino Roe
Roemer Rose Rostenkowski Roukema Rowland (CT) Rowland (GA) Roybal Russo Sabo Savage Saxton
Scheuer Schneider Schroeder Schumer Seiberling Sensenbrenner Shaw Slattery Slaughter Smith (FL)
Smith (NJ) Solarz St Germain Stark Stenholm Stratton Studds Swift Synar Tauke Torres Torricelli
Towns Traficant Udall Vento Visclosky Walgren Waxman Weiss Wheat Whitehurst Whittaker Wirth
Wolf Wolpe Wright Wylie Yates Yatron Young (FL) Young (MO) Zschau
NOES-184
Alexander Andrews Archer Armey AuCoin Badham Bartlett Barton Bevill Bilirakis Bliley Boehlert Boner
(TN) Boucher Breaux Brooks Brown (CO) Broyhill Bruce Bryant Burton (IN) Bustamante Byron
Callahan Campbell Carney Chapman Chappell Chappie Cheney Clinger Cobey Coble Coleman (TX)
Combest Cooper Craig Crane Daniel Dannemeyer Darden Daschle Daub Davis DeLay Derrick
Dickinson Dingell Dornan (CA) Dowdy Dreier Duncan Dyson Eckert (NY) Emerson English Erdreich
Fiedler Fields Flippo Foley Franklin Gaydos Gingrich Gordon Gregg Gunderson Hall, Ralph Hamilton
Hammerschmidt Hansen Hartnett Hefner Hendon Holt Hopkins Horton Hubbard Huckaby Hunter
Jenkins Jones (OK) Jones (TN) Kanjorski Kemp Kolbe Kolter Lagomarsino Latta Leath (TX) Lewis (CA) Lightfoot Livingston Lloyd Loeffler Lott Luken Mack Marlenee Martin (NY) McCain McCloskey McCurdy
McDade McEwen McKernan McMillan Miller (OH) Mollohan Monson Montgomery Moore Moorhead
Murphy Murtha Natcher Oberstar Obey Olin Ortiz Packard Pashayan Penny Perkins Pickle Quillen
Rahall Reid Richardson Roberts Robinson Rogers Roth Rudd Schaefer Schuette Sharp Shelby
Shumway Shuster Sikorski Siljander Sisisky Skeen Skelton Smith (IA) Smith (NE) Smith, Denny (OR)
Smith, Robert (NH) Smith, Robert (OR) Snowe Snyder Solomon Spence Spratt Staggers Stallings
Stangeland Strang Stump Sundquist Sweeney Swindall Tallon Tauzin Taylor Thomas (CA) Thomas
(GA) Traxler Valentine Vander Jagt Volkmer Vucanovich Walker Watkins Weaver Weber Whitley
Whitten Williams Wise Wortley Wyden Young (AK)
NOT VOTING-17
Addabbo Berman Boulter Ford (TN) Gephardt Gray (IL) Gray (PA) Grotberg Heftel Ireland Kramer
Lujan Nichols O’Brien Schulze Stokes Wilson
10:50 a.m.
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Heftel, for, with Mr. Nichols against.
Mr. Gephardt, for, with Mr. Schulze against.
Mr. Stokes, for, with Mr. Gray of Illinios against.
Messrs. DANNEMEYER, NEAL, SCHAEFER, and GINGRICH, Mrs. BYRON, and Mrs. SMITH of Nebraska changed their votes from “aye” to “no.”
Messrs. CARR, ROSE, COELHO, and NEAL changed their votes from “no” to “aye.”
So the amendment to the amendment, as amended, offered as a substitute for the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have left in the debate and what happens to amendments not debated?
The CHAIRMAN. There are 4 minutes remaining for consideration of all amendments to the bill and all amendments that have not been offered to the Volkmer substitute could not be offered.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, explain to me under the rules of the House and under this debate for amendments not able to be discussed within the next 240 seconds, what happens to those amendments? Do we have a chance to vote yes or no?
The CHAIRMAN. Under the special order under which the Committee is operating, the time expires for purposes of considering amendments to the bill in 4 minutes. So any amendments that have not been offered within the time allocated by the rule which has been voted on by the House will not be offered.
The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from New Jersey rise, the chairman of the subcommittee?
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of my colleague from Missouri if my colleague would agree to an additional hour of debate beyond the time permitted so that Members who have noticed amendments will have an opportunity to offer those amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. It is impossible for the Chair to recognize any Member for purposes of changing the rule adopted by the House. The Committee is restricted by the rule which has been voted on by the House.
The Committee is not authorized to change the rule in that way.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from Maryland <Mr. BARNES>.
(Mr. BARNES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to weakening gun controls. We ought to be strengthening gun control laws in this country.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois <Mrs. COLLINS>.
(Mrs. COLLINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my regret that, under the rule, I will not be allowed to offer my amendment to the Volkmer substitute. Had I had the opportunity, my amendment, which was printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD prior to debate, would have strengthened gun control in a number of significant ways.
First, the measure would require each State to establish a State handgun registration system.
Second, each State would be responsible for imposing suitable penalties for noncompliance, including: First, mandatory imprisonment for a period of not less than 15 years imposed on persons who violate the registration provision; and second, fines of not more than $250,000. Moreover, under my amendment, no suspended sentences or probation would be allowed. In the event the States fail to adopt this gun registration program, the U.S. Attorney General shall be authorized to establish a Federal handgun registration program.
Thus, my amendment would have strengthened gun control in three important ways. First, the greatest value of the system of handgun registration is that it will enable law enforcement officers to trace weapons used in crimes. This is one major reason why police groups support handgun registration. Second, registration can be used as an additional weapon against suspects arrested with an unregistered handgun. Even while there is not enough evidence to support a conviction for a substantive crime, violation of the registration law will be enough for conviction. Third, registration also induces accountability on the part of handgun owners. Knowing there is an official record of ownership, they will act more responsibly in the care of their guns, promptly reporting any loss, theft, or sale.
I regret that I was prevented by the rule from introducing this important measure today. But I will continue to pursue handgun registration at every opportunity, including fighting for adoption of my handgun registration bill (H.R. 299). By mandating handgun registration, we will forge a doubleedged sword for fighting violent crime. First, we will give State law enforcement officials-the people on the front lines in war on crime-an important weapon they need to solve crimes. Second, we will put in place a strong deterrent to violent crimes committed with handguns. Clearly, if we are serious about reducing handgun crime, we can do no less.
Mr. LEVINE of California. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to all efforts to weaken handgun controls because access to handguns significantly increases violent crime. Every year, handguns are used in the murders of over 10,000 Americans and last year in the murder of 58 police officers. We should respond to this carnage with laws aimed at saving lives and reducing crime. Instead, we are considering legislation which significantly erodes current laws under the guise of protecting the rights of hunters and sportsmen.
Provisions in this amendment will enable criminals to travel to other States to purchase handguns, buy untraceable handguns from unregistered dealers, and transport their new weapons back to their home States.
Law enforcement abhors this legislation because of the mayhem it will create on our streets and in our homes. If this language is passed, we will see more violent crimes, more crimes of passion, and more accidental shootings.
This legislation goes far beyond the concerns of hunters and sportsmen by actually increasing the availability of handguns. These weapons have little sporting use, but can be easily concealed by criminals.
Under the Volkmer proposals individuals who cannot obtain handguns in their own locales can travel to other States for weapons. Although this legislation provides that the State and local laws of the buyer and seller are to be followed in handgun transactions, it then negates this provision by allowing dealers who break State and local laws to use ignorance of the law as a defense for their actions.
Dealers will essentially be able to sell to anyone who walks in the door.
Further, this language overrides State and local laws regarding the transportation of handguns by allowing handguns to be carried for “interstate commerce” or for hunting or sporting purposes. This provision will drastically increase the number of handguns on the street, and further handicap law enforcement efforts to control handgun crime.
This legislation additionally weakens law enforcement efforts by relaxing dealer registration provisions and allowing unlicensed individuals to sell handguns without keeping records. Additionally, licensed dealers may transfer stock to their “personal collections” and then sell from these collections without the records. Essentially, this means that there will be more untraceable weapons on the streets for criminal use.
This is not a prosportsman bill. This is a procrime bill.
We have a moral responsibility to protect the safety of the citizens of this country. Every year, 10,000 deaths result from handguns. These deaths often occur in the commission of senseless crimes. Some deaths occur in the passion of the moment, and additional tragic deaths occur accidently. But all have in common the easy access to handguns. We have a moral responsibility to fight this violence. To decrease the rate of violent crimes, halt the crime of passion, protect the innocent. The Volkmer legislation will not achieve any of these goals, and will impede what progress we have achieved. I have heard from people from all walks of life who are deeply concerned about handgun violence and the impact of this legislation. Physicians, judges, clergy members, and citizens are calling for stronger and tougher laws. We should hear those voices and not further erode these laws.
Mr. WOLPE. Mr. Chairman, much has already been said about the gun control legislation that we are considering today. However, I feel compelled to share with my colleagues a letter that was recently presented to me by a group of local police chiefs in my congressional district who are strongly opposed to the Volkmer substitute.
Like literally thousands of other law enforcement personnel across the country, the police in my district are concerned that the Volkmer substitute would add considerably more peril to their job than already exists, and that it would effectively undermine their already difficult fight against violent crime. A line from their letter perhaps best sums up their views on this issue: “We can only be as effective as the law permits.”
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to insert the letter from the police in my district into the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. I hope my colleagues will take their appeal to heart. In my mind, this is not only just a vote for the law enforcement community, but for the entire pulbic interest.
KALAMAZOO COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
Kalamazoo, MI, April 2, 1986. Hon. HOWARD WOLPE,
U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE WOLPE: We respectfully request your support on a current issue coming up for a House vote in early April; the Hughes Law Enforcement Amendment (H.R. 4332) to the McClureVolkmer Gun Decontrol Act (S. 49 & H.R. 945).
We believe House approval of the Hughes Amendment will be a major contribution to continued reasonable and rational federal control on the sale, use and interstate commerce of firearms. This Amendment seeks to retain essential elements of law to help keep guns and the transport of guns out of the hands of the criminals as well as persons disposed to seek ready access to a gun for a single violent act.
As you know, crime continues to be a primary fear and concern of all law abiding Americans. We, like you, maintain a close communication with our constituents. We cannot believe the average American would agree with McClure-Volkmer bill or its amendment (H.R. 945) after having it explained in detail. In fact, what we hear in the community is “why can’t you get these people and their guns off the street before they commit more violence?” As you know, we can only be as effective as the law permits. The citizens need your help.
Our second concern comes from the “street” police officers across the nation who must face guns either responding to crime scenes, or by happen-stance during a routine traffic stop. Police officers also need your help. The current Gun Control Act of 1968 provides for legitimate gun ownership and without unreasonable restraint. We believe S. 49 weakens the present law without amendment and we have unified to show our opposition. The bill’s sponsors have recognized major points raised as being valid by introducing a substitute amendment (H.R. 945), however, it doesn’t go far enough. We need the Hughes Amendment and the American people need it. Please support the Hughes Amendment (H.R. 4332) and encourage your colleagues to support it.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If we can provide any further assistance, please let us know.
Respectfully,
John E. Ross, Chief of Public Safety, City of Kalamazoo; Richard Butler, Chief of Police, Kalamazoo Township; Thomas N. Edmonds, Sheriff, County of Kalamazoo; George VonBehren, Chief of Police, City of Portage; Lanny Wilde, Chief of Public Safety, Western Michigan University.
Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Chairman, a clear majority of this House, including myself, believes that the current law needs revision. The Volkmer proposal was a good start. The committee bill was also a useful proposal.
It had been my intention to support the Volkmer version until I listened to law enforcement officials in my district. The chiefs in my area, the sheriffs, the police and peace officers’ groups, even the State bureau of criminal apprehension, have requested my support of the Hughes amendment to the Volkmer proposal.
The strong feelings expressed by these frontline troops in the war against crime, and the unanimity of all the law enforcement groups, was persuasive, and so I voted for the Hughes amendment yesterday. That nine-part amendment did not, in my judgment, do great violence to the general intent of the Volkmer proposal, but it failed to pass.
When the Hughes amendment to preserve current law with respect to interstate sales of handguns was passed, I supported it since it was the most important feature of the original nine-part Hughes amendment, and because of the support of the law enforcement groups. It did not disturb the Volkmer reform relaxing such sales of rifles and shotguns.
I then supported the Volkmer proposal, as amended by the interstate handgun and machinegun amendment against the original committee bill, and on final passage.
I am disappointed that our local police officers did not get the changes they sought, but I am glad that needed changes were made in our nearly 20-year-old gun laws.
The procedures, however, deserve strong criticism. First, the Judiciary Committee apparently tried to bury the Volkmer bill despite its strong support from a majority of Members. When a discharge petition was initiated, I told the subcommittee chairman that I would sign the petition if he could not bring a bill to the floor by May 1.
The committee and the petition finished in a dead heat. It is always better to handle important legislation under regular procedures, so one must give the committee bad marks for delay. The committee looks good, however, compared to the Rules Committee and the House leadership. The Rule was a ridiculous restraint on debate and amendments on an issue on which interest was obviously keen. The Speaker personally disrupted his own schedule at the last minute in a way that personally inconvenienced many Members. The confusion that accompanied the expiration of time in the Committee of the Whole was a disgrace, and the refusal of the Acting Speaker to recognize minority Members seeking to move amendments was a breach of the House’s regular customs. The result was satisfactory, but the procedures by which we achieved it were not. That procedure is one more bit of evidence that the leadership of this House is tired and needs change.
Mr. GALLO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my constituents in the 11th District of New Jersey who took time to contact me with their views on the gun legislation considered in the House of
Representatives today. I am pleased that the House of Representatives reached a compromise that addresses the concerns of both law enforcement and law-abiding sportsmen and hunters. I want to take this opportunity to let my constituents know, of the reasons why I supported the Volkmer substitute legislation, which passed in the House of Representatives today by a vote of 292 to 130.
For sportsmen, this bill permits the interstate sale of certain, but not all, firearms if the sale is made face to face between buyer and seller and only if the sale complies with laws of both States. It assures the rights of individuals to travel in and between States with a secured, unloaded, not readily accessible firearm for the purpose of participating in legal sporting activities or for changing their residence. While the bill permits the interstate sale of long guns and shotguns, this bill in no way permits the interstate sale of handguns. I specifically voted in favor of the amendment to prohibit the interstate sale of handguns.
For law enforcement, this bill provides an important new weapon against narcotics traffickers by mandating a 5-year mandatory prison sentence for any person who uses a firearm during commission of a drug trafficking crime; provides a mandatory prison term of 10 years for using a machinegun during commission of a crime; bans the use or sale of silencers; bans the importation of parts used to make Saturday night specials; bans parts used to convert guns into machineguns; and makes it a felony to transfer a firearm to another person knowing or having reason to believe that such person is unqualified.
For gun dealers, this bill requires a knowing state of mind for felony violations; reduces technical recordkeeping offenses to a misdemeanor; permits sales at gun shows; and limits unannounced inspections to one per year with other inspections requiring a warrant.
Again, let me state that this bill will not make it easier for criminals to obtain guns. Criminals already go outside the law to obtain guns. Purchasing a handgun in any State other than the person’s residence is strictly prohibited. For shotguns and long guns, this bill will not allow someone to escape the jurisdiction of their State laws and purchase in a State with more lenient laws since all interstate sales must comply with State laws of both the owner and the seller. As my constituents know, New Jersey has very stringent gun control laws which will remain in effect under this bill.
In sum, this bill will aid law enforcement by simplifying the administration of the law, eliminating some ambiguities and, overall, will benefit law-abiding shooters, sportsmen, and other gun owners. Mr. MILLER of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the McClure-Volkmer substitute, and in support of H.R. 4332, a bill by Representative HUGHES to improve the regulation of firearms in this country.
Both bills make it easier for hunters and sportsmen to transport legally acquired rifles safely and securely across State lines. And rightly so. But McClure-Volkmer does and does not do some things that alarm me. McClure-Volkmer allows the interstate sale of handguns and of Saturday night specials, weapons that have contributed to thousands of homicides in our country.
Some refinements in current law may indeed be necessary to protect individual rights and to correct inequities. But, for heavens sake, while making these adjustments, let us not remove or weaken those very few requirements which provide the public and the police a minimum of protection. The McClure-Volkmer substitute allows the interstate sale of silencers and plastic guns, and of automatic weapon assemblies-all weapons or weapon parts that are not used for any good. What sportsman would want to use a plastic gun? What hunter would want to use a silencer? In this debate Mr. Chairman, we should be very clear about one thing: The Hughes bill, not the
McClure-Volkmer amendment, is the law and order bill. This may not be the opinion of the National Rifle Association, but it is the opinion of just about every major law enforcement and police organization in this country. Police officers around the Nation are pleading for our help to stem the flood of lethal handguns now engulfing our towns and cities. These officers support this bill. And I hope, I pray that we here today, heed their pleas, because they are pleading for our-and their-lives. Let me say again, the Hughes bill is a law and order bill. It is not antihunter; this Hughes bill is not antitarget shooter. In fact, this bill contains key provisions which will protect the rights of hunters and target shooters who travel across State lines to shoot or who wish to buy rifles and shotguns in other than their home States. These are the same protections that are in the McClure-Volkmer substitute. This bill also contains added protections for gun dealers. It permits the sale of rifles and shotguns at gun shows and the bill clarifies several other provisions of the 1968 law which have proven cumbersome to dealers and unnecessary for effective law enforcement.
But, more importantly, the Hughes legislation gives our police the legal tools they need to protect themselves and us from machineguns and the justly infamous Saturday night special cheap handguns that so often find their way into the hand of the criminally sane and insane. This bill says if you deal drugs and use a gun, you go to jail for at least 5 years. If you use a machinegun in your criminal activities, you get 10 years in jail. And if you repeat the offense, you get another 20 years. At the President’s request, this bill places tighter controls on the sale of parts used to convert semiautomatic weapons into machineguns. This bill bans the sale of silencers or silencer kits, a tool used almost exclusively in contract killings. And finally, this bill bans the importation of cheap handguns, the justly infamous Saturday night special.
I read a newspaper interview recently of Mrs. Sarah Brady. Mrs. Brady as we all know is the wife of Presidential Press Secretary James Brady, the same James Brady who was almost killed by a wouldbe Presidential assassin’s bullet. The bullet came from a handgun, purchased from a pawn shop by a man with a history of mental illness. Now in this interview, Mrs. Brady said she had to be careful and not become too emotional in her opposition to the effort to weaken controls on handgun sales. Mrs. Brady rightly feels that too much emotion about this issue, particularly on her part, would obscure the simple fact that thoughtful, careful controls on the sale of handguns will save lives. It will save the lives of policemen, preschoolers, and yes, Presidents.
Mr. WOLPE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to final passage of the Volkmer substitute. I cannot in good conscience support a proposal that will significantly undermine our Nation’s law enforcement community in their fight against violent crime.
Let’s be clear about one thing in today’s debate: This is not a discussion about the right to own firearms. Nor is it about preventing the legitimate use of firearms by hunters, sportsmen, and collectors. I have always supported the rights of hunters and sportsmen and will continue to do so. This is why I supported the Hughes amendment which, in my view, was both a responsible and balanced approach in reforming our Federal gun laws; it provided our Nation’s police personnel with the necessary tools they need to effectively fight violent crime, while protecting the interests of hunters and sportsmen by allowing the interstate sale and transportation of rifles and shotguns for hunting purposes.
Mr. Chairman, it is no great secret that the Volkmer substitute is vehemently opposed by the 12 principal police organizations throughout the country. In fact, I have just returned from my congressional district where I personally met with a number of local police officials who expressed grave concerns about this proposal. The police officials whom I met with don’t understand why we should add more danger to their jobs than already exists, and why we would seek to undermine their fight against violent crime. Specifically, they don’t understand why we should provide loopholes for the interstate sale of handguns; for the sale of silencers and machineguns; and for cop-killer tefloncoated bullets that can penetrate bullet-proof vests. Furthermore, they don’t understand why we would-of all things-support a plastic gun which terrorists can smuggle undetected through Federal aviation approved airport security systems, and why we would oppose a simple background check and waiting period for those persons who purchase handguns. And, quite frankly, they wonder why the national leadership of the NRA-who have traditionally been strong supporters of the law enforcement community-are now trying to make their jobs so much more difficult.
Mr. Chairman, let me take a moment to address a few of their concerns. I strongly believe there is a major difference between the extremist views of the national leadership of the NRA and the much more reasonable and responsible views of their rank and file members. The sportsmen in my district support vigorous and effective law enforcement. They resent the bum rap they are tagged with when reckless measures-like the Volkmer substitute-that would destroy effective law enforcement are advanced in their name. They know that machineguns and silencers are not used by sportsmen or responsible citizens. They know that handguns must be kept out of the hands of racketeers and professional killers. They understand that a background check and a reasonable waiting period for those persons who purchase handguns are necessary if we are serious about reducing violent crime. They know that roughly 10,000 Americans-more than 70 of them police officers-are killed by handgun wielding criminals every year.
National polls are telling us that one of the most serious concerns of the American people is the problem of violent crime. This is not the time to retreat in our fight against violent crime. Rather, it is time to listen to the voices of reason on this issue. Listen to Sarah Brady-whose husband, Jim Brady, and Presidential Press Secretary, was seriosly wounded in the assassination attempt on President Reagan-who declared her support for “finding ways to keep handguns out of the wrong hands * * *.
The case of John Hinckley is a vivid reminder of how easy it is for a handgun to fall in the wrong hands.” Listen to the 12 principal police organizations and to the police officials in my district who have warned the Volkmer substitute contains “gravely dangerous provisions that pose an immediate threat to American citizens and the law enforcement officers sworn to protect them.” Listen to sportsmen and hunters who are saying that they do not believe that the Volkmer substitute is in their best interests. And, finally, listen to Attorney General Ed Meese, who now expresses misgivings about the Volkmer substitute and calls Rodino-Hughes “the kind of bill that I would feel comfortable with.” Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity today to help our Nation’s law enforcement community in their efforts to combat violent crime. I hope my colleagues will recognize this critical opportunity by rejecting the McClure-Volkmer substitute.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, in the minds of millions of Americans the Gun Control Act of 1968 was an unintentional overreaction to the increasing number of firearm related crimes in the United States. Since then there have been several attempts to modify the law. After 18 years, the House now has before it the legislation to accomplish this goal.
Both the Volkmer substitute and H.R. 4332 offer several provisions that would facilitate the purchase of sport and collectors’ firearms by law-abiding citizens. They also bar the importation of Saturday night special barrels. They prohibit the transferring of firearms by nonlicensees to unqualified persons as well. Finally, they both expand mandatory penalties for using a firearm during a crime. Despite these similarities, it is my intent to support the Volkmer substitute because it provides greater freedom to gunowners that abide by the law, while at the same time, providing penalties for persons who violate that law.
The Volkmer substitute makes it lawful to transport all rifles, shotguns, or handguns as long as they are not readily accessible. It also allows the sale of any firearm to an out-of-State purchaser if that sale is in person and complies with the applicable laws of both the State of purchase and the buyer’s residence. Representing the Third District of Wisconsin, which lies along the Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois borders. This is an important point because H.R. 4332 would prohibit my constituents from crossing a State line to purchase certain guns for their gun collection.
The Volkmer substitute also protects gunowners from having their entire collection or inventory of firearms confiscated or their dealer license revoked if they are found not guilty of criminal charges. By including a definition of “engaged in the business,” the Volkmer substitute also removes an ambiguity in H.R. 4332. Specifically, this definition makes a distinction between persons who sell guns primarily for monetary gain and those who collect and trade guns as a hobby. It provides greater protection for those that trade and transfer guns as a hobby against the seizure of their collections. Granted the Volkmer substitute is not a perfect bill. Yet, I believe its intent is to allow access to the purchase and transfer firearms that are used for sport and collection purposes.
While I recognize that many of my colleagues have serious and legitimate concerns in reference to the use of handguns in crimes, it seems to me that efforts to control handgun-related crimes by a complete prohibition on the sale and possession of handguns is akin to controlling drunk driving by prohibiting the sale and possession of automobiles. I don’t believe this is the best way to deter violent crimes involving handguns.
It has made more sense to me to address handgun control crimes through sentencing procedures. Specifically, if a crime is committed while in the possession of a handgun, an additional period of time is tacked onto the sentence. Further, such additional jail time would be mandatory and not subject to commutation or parole. Finally, repeat offenders using handguns would be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. I have cosponsored such legislation in the past and will do so in the future.
As I noted the Volkmer substitute is not perfect. It could more positively address waiting periods prior to the purchase of a handgun and the recordkeeping of firearm transfers.
Although waiting periods may be somewhat burdensome for purchasers, they provide a means to keep firearms out of the hands of people who intend to use them for violent crimes. That’s why about 18 States have their own waiting period for handgun purchases.
Accurate recordkeeping of transfers is also important as it is often the only means that law enforcement officials have to trace a firearm that been used in a violent crime.
Yet, on balance, the Volkmer substitute has much more good than bad in it. Afterall, no law ought to be immune from oversight and change. For too long, that’s exactly what happened with the Gun Control Act of 1968.
I believe that the Volkmer substitute goes a long way in revising some of the problems in the current law.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the substitute being offered by the
gentleman from Missouri, and I want to commend him for his leadership on this legislation. The substitute being offered by my colleague truly protects the rights of law-abiding citizens who wish to own a firearm for legitimate purposes.
My colleague’s substitute also addresses the concerns of law enforcement by providing them with clear language that effectively addresses the problem of criminal misuse of firearms.
A recent study commissioned by the Department of Justice uncovered statistics that will be useful to this body when considering the value of Mr. VOLKMER’s substitute.
The study found that among convicted felons 69 percent did not carry firearms. The fear of stiffer sentences caused 79 percent of those respondents not to carry guns. Of the criminals questioned, 88 percent stated that gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens.
The Justice study also determined that criminals fear the armed citizen. In States with less restrictive gun control laws, criminals were less likely to victimize citizens because of the possibility they might be armed.
These statistics bear out the need for stiff penalties for criminal misuse of guns. These penalties, along with the fair treatment for honest gun owners, are all found in my colleague’s substitute. Although the Gun Control Act of 1968 was touted as a measure to curb crime, it has not done so. This substitute, on the other hand, is a boon to law enforcement. It provides tough mandatory penalties for criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime. That’s jail time on top of any other sentence the judge delivers. Probation, parole, and work furloughs are not an option. This substitute extends these same stiff penalties to drug traffickers as well. I’m sure my colleagues will agree that including drug traffickers under this sentencing provision adds real strength to the law and aids our Nation’s law enforcement officers.
This substitute makes it a crime for any person to transfer a firearm to a criminal or other prohibited person. It further creates specific, uniform classes of prohibited persons, so law enforcement has a precise definition under the law of seven classes of persons who would be banned from all receipt, purchase, or possession of firearms.
The substitute also provides reasonable and efficient provisions for law enforcement officials in regard to tracing and criminal investigations.
Clearly, the gentleman from Missouri has offered a substitute that will benefit all of our Nation’s citizens. By refocusing current law away from peaceful, honest citizens and toward violent criminals the valuable resources of our law enforcement community will be better served. As we all know, the vast majority of citizens in this country do not misuse firearms. Federal legislation should not deprive them of their ability to acquire and possess firearms for legitimate purposes. The safeguards in this substitute will certainly make it tough for the criminal element without restricting or abusing honest citizens.
Mr. MILLER of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to ban the manufacture and importation of plastic guns-an amendment on which the majority refuses to allow a vote. I want to give my colleagues something to think about as we think about this amendment. You’ve got 5 minutes to catch a plane. The line at the airport metal detector is a block long, stalled by a fellow who is oh so slowly taking everything out of his pockets before he goes through the metal detector for a third try. As the seconds tick by your blood pressure is about to go through the roof-until you remember why those metal detectors are there. You think about the hijackings, the killings, the terrorists and suddenly you’re awfully glad for those metal detectors. But what if the metal detector were ” blind?” What if there were weapons the metal detector could not detect?
Well, forget the “what ifs” because plastic explosives have already killed four people just this past week on board a commercial airliner. And, Mr. Chairman, plastic weapons are real and they are invisible to the x-ray machines and metal detectors at most airports.
The Libyan Government has ordered 100 of these undetectable handguns from a manufacturer in Austria. The same Libyan Government that trained and harbored the terrorists responsible for murders around the world. They are among the first customers for these invisible weapons. We must do everything we can now to stop the spread of this weapon. I urge you, in the strongest terms possible, to vote to prevent the importation and domestic manufacture of these weapons before it is too late.
Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Volkmer substitute to the Rodino-Hughes bill, H.R. 4332. The Volkmer substitute is a good compromise which makes much needed reforms in the Gun Control Act of 1968 while also addressing some of the concerns of the law-enforcement community and the Justice Department. It is a bill which also satisfies the concerns of sportsmen who have been subjected during the past several years to burdensome and confusing regulations.
The Volkmer substitute is a prosportsmen bill; the Rodino-Hughes bill is not. The Volkmer substitute contains provisions which benefit sportsmen that the Rodino-Hughes bill does not contain. For example, hunters, particularly active hunters, often have several firearms and frequently “trade up” their guns. When they buy a new, more modern, or just a different firearm, these sportsmen frequently trade or sell an older gun. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, with its nondefinition of “engaged in the business,” an activity like this risked prosecution. Under the proposed Hughes definition, such activities would probably either require most active hunters to acquire Federal firearms licenses-if they could-or become felons, or use licensed dealers for transfers, at a substantial loss of money each time they traded a firearm.
The Volkmer substitute, on the other hand, defines engaged in the business so that these occasional sales or trades would be allowed without turning our Nation’s hunters into felons. We are not talking about risky sales of guns which may be used in crime or bought by criminals; we are talking about sportsmen and sportswomen selling or trading rifles and shotguns, and an occasional handgun, with their friends and hunting buddies. The sportsmen of this country should not be hindered or deemed suspect because of this activity. The Volkmer substitute clarifies and improves the law; the HughesRodino measure considers hunters likely to be felons.
Another provision important to our Nation’s sportsmen deals with the interstate transportation, or passthrough, provision. When sportsmen go hunting, they take what guns they need with them, and frequently must pass through a number of States, and countless cities and counties, to get where they want to go. Those guns may include rifles or shotguns, and may frequently include a handgun. Handguns are used by hunters and outdoorsmen for protection in the wilderness, as a means of signaling in an emergency, as a snake gun on trails, or for killing a wounded animal. There is no reason these persons should have to risk prosecution if they pass through some antihandgun jurisdiction with an unloaded handgun locked in the trunk.
For that matter, there is no reason that the only competitive shooters who will be allowed to pass through without risk are trap, skeet, and riflemen. I would remind my colleagues that pistol shooting is an Olympic event, accounting for 30 percent of the medals offered in Olympic shooting competition. In addition to international-rule pistol shooting competitions, practical or action pistol competition and silhouette hunter’s pistol competition are becoming increasingly popular. And, of course, there is police pistol combat competition. Unlike the Volkmer substitute, the Hughes-Rodino bill would not even guarantee the ability of law-enforcement officers to pass through restrictive States, cities, and counties, to reach places like Des Moines to compete with their service arms.
And finally, our Nation’s sportsmen, as exemplified by the National Wildlife Federation, are interested in allowing law-abiding citizens to buy firearms of all kinds in whatever State they happen to be in so long as the purchase is in compliance with the laws of both the dealer’s and the purchaser’s States. Current law only allows for replacement of lost, stolen, or damaged rifles and shotguns while on hunting trips, and with considerable inconvenience. The Rodino-Hughes bill would improve the situation somewhat by allowing the purchase of rifles and shotguns in other States so long as the laws of both States allow the sale.
Again, however, I want to remind my colleagues that sportsmen, hunters, and target shooters, use handguns as well as rifles and shotguns in their legitimate sport. And there is no reason they should not be allowed-in full compliance with the laws of their home State and in full compliance with the laws where they are making the purchase, and only through a federally licensed dealer-to purchase handguns either because their gun was damaged or because they found one that they wanted to add to their collection.
A myth that needs to be dispelled among nongun owners is that hunters, target shooters, and outsdoorsmen and outdoorswomen do not own or use handguns. That misconception is not held by those who use guns in their sport, such as the over 4 million members of the National Wildlife Federation, the over 3 million members of the National Rifle Association, and the over 16 million licensed hunters in this Nation. These law-abiding citizens use handguns for legitimate sporting purposes and prefer the Volkmer language dealing with the interstate sale and interstate transport of firearms.
In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support our Nation’s sportsmen and sportswomen and conservationists by adopting the language on interstate sales and transportation, and “engaged in the business” of the Volkmer substitute to the Rodino-Hughes gun bill.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Volkmer substitute and urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this antilaw enforcement legislation.
I support the efforts of Congressman WILLIAM HUGHES and the Judiciary Committee to develop a compromise bill, H.R. 4332, which represents a bipartisan, balanced, and reasonable effort to strengthen the 1968 Gun Control Act and relieve sportsmen and dealers of excessive burdens without compromising the safety of law enforcement officers.
Despite what the NRA claims, the Judiciary bill has nothing to do with the right of hunters or lawabiding citizens to “bear arms.” What we’re talking about is criminals and convicted murderers getting a hold of concealable weapons that kill innocent citizens and police officers. Unfortunately, the strongarm tactics of the NRA have undermined the efforts of Congress to aid law enforcement in a responsible manner.
Every law enforcement group in the country opposes McClure-Volkmer. The job of police officers is difficult enough without approving a bill that they clearly view as life threatening. There is little Congress can do to help law enforcement; but it can vote against weakening necessary and effective gun control laws.
The changes offered by McClure-Volkmer pose an immediate and unwarranted threat to the law enforcement community. Police officers are particularly concerned about easing recordkeeping and licensing requirements because the changes mandated by McClure-Volkmer would make it harder to trace weapons and would undercut State and local laws. McClure-Volkmer will make it easier for criminals to do their work and harder for police to do theirs.
Just 10 days ago, the Philadelphia Police Department and the people of Philadelphia were hit with a glaring reminder of why tough gun control laws are needed. Sgt. Ralph Galdi, a 20-year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Force, was fatally struck down by a convicted felon with a .357 magnum handgun.
Galdi and his partner had been driving back to headquarters when they came upon a car whose driver had caused a series of automobile accidents in a crowded Philadelphia commercial neighborhood. When the driver attempted to flee, Galdi jumped out of his car and apprehended the man. As Galdi was about to frisk the suspect, the man turned and shot him twice in the chest and abdomen. Sergeant Galdi died on a hospital operating table after surgeons battled for more than 2 hours to save his life.
The man charged with firing the shots that killed Sergeant Galdi, Pedro Vega, was a fugitive with a pending bench warrant for his arrest issued in June 1985, after he failed to appear in court on drug charges. Previously, Vega had been prosecuted in New Jersey on two separate charges of receiving stolen cars and was sentenced to 1 year in jail and 3 year’s probation.
If there had been a background check when Vega bought his gun, Sergeant Galdi would be alive today. Instead, a dedicated 20-year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Force is dead today because our laws did not protect him.
The violent handgun death of Sergeant Galdi illustrates the urgent need for stronger laws to protect our police and citizens. In fact, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Kevin Tucker called for stiffer standards for gun permits to reduce the danger of citizens being hurt when large numbers of weapons are easily available. In Pennsyvlania, once a permit is issued, the license holder has the right to carry any type and number of weapons. Commissioner Tucker is concerned that rather than being used to stop crime, the weapons would end up being used improperly or lead to shootings injuring or killing innocent people.
This is not the time to weaken handgun sales restrictions. Passage of the McClure-Volkmer bill permitting interstate sales of handguns poses a serious threat to law-abiding citizens and to law enforcement officers by making it easier for criminals to obtain handguns, by loosening gun dealer recordkeeping requirements and by making it almost impossible to verify the legality of sales involving out-of-State residents.
The McClure-Volkmer bill completely guts the only handgun law we have, and allows the interstate sale of handguns without any restrictions, regulations, or background checks. That means that convicted murderers back out on our streets will have even easier access to guns than they have now.
Today’s vote is really very simple: you’re either for police officers and law-abiding citizens or you are against them.
11:05 a.m.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HUGHES TO THE AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY MR.
VOLKMER AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF
A SUBSTITUTE, AS AMENDED
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, before the amendment is read, I would like to know if the amendment was one of those printed in the RECORD prior to today.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will so inquire of the gentleman from New Jersey whether his amendment has been printed in the RECORD?
Mr. HUGHES. It has been printed in the RECORD, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has it been printed in the RECORD by Mr. HUGHES?
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, it is not required that the sponsor of the amendment have it printed in the RECORD.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. HUGHES to the amendment as amended, offered by Mr. VOLKMER as a substitute for the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended: Section 102 of the matter proposed to be inserted is amended- (1) in paragraph (7), by striking out “and”;
- in paragraph (8), by striking out the period at the end and inserting in lieu thereof “; and”; and
- by adding at the end the following:
(9) by inserting after the subsection added by paragraph (8) of this section the following:
“(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
“(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to-
“(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or “(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.”.
Section 110 of the matter proposed to be inserted is amended by adding at the end the following: (c) MACHINEGUN PROHIBITION.-Section 102(9) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request that the amendment be considerd as read and printed in the RECORD. I ask my colleagues, in all fairness and rationality-we only have 3 minutes left-to give me an opportunity to explain why machineguns should be banned. Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, regular order and reserving the right to object– The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for a waiver of the reading of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for a waiver of the reading of the amendment. I do not know why anyone would object to the banning of machineguns.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk concluded the reading of the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it the Chair’s understanding that the gentleman from New Jersey moves that the Committee do now rise?
Mr. HUGHES. That is my motion, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr.
HUGHES>.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 124, noes 298, not voting 12, as follows:
<Roll No. 73>
AYES-124
Ackerman Akaka Anderson Annunzio Anthony Aspin Atkins Barnes Bates Beilenson Bennett Berman Biaggi Boland Bonior (MI) Borski Boxer Broomfield Burton (CA) Carper Clay Collins Conyers Cooper
Coyne Crockett Dellums Dixon Donnelly Downey Durbin Dwyer Dymally Early Edgar Edwards (CA) Evans (IL) Fascell Fawell Fazio Feighan Foglietta Ford (TN) Frank Garcia Gejdenson Gibbons Gonzalez
Gordon Gray (PA) Green Guarini Hawkins Hayes Henry Hertel Howard Hoyer Hughes Jacobs Kaptur
Kastenmeier Kennelly Kildee Kleczka LaFalce Lehman (CA) Lehman (FL) Leland Levin (MI) Levine (CA)
Lipinski Lowry (WA) Manton Markey Martinez Matsui Mavroules McKinney Mikulski Miller (CA) Miller
(WA) Mineta Moakley Moody Morrison (CT) Mrazek Oakar Owens Porter Price Rangel Rodino Roe
Rostenkowski Roybal Russo Sabo Savage Scheuer Schroeder Schumer Seiberling Smith (FL) Solarz Spratt St Germain Stark Stratton Studds Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Udall Vento Visclosky
Walgren Waxman Weiss Wheat Whitehurst Wolpe Yates
NOES-298
Alexander Andrews Applegate Archer Armey AuCoin Badham Barnard Bartlett Barton Bateman Bedell
Bentley Bereuter Bevill Bilirakis Bliley Boehlert Boggs Boner (TN) Bonker Bosco Boucher Breaux
Brooks Brown (CA) Brown (CO) Broyhill Bruce Bryant Burton (IN) Bustamante Byron Callahan
Campbell Carney Carr Chandler Chapman Chappell Chappie Cheney Clinger Coats Cobey Coble Coelho
Coleman (MO) Coleman (TX) Combest Conte Coughlin Courter Craig Crane Daniel Dannemeyer
Darden Daschle Daub Davis de la Garza DeLay Derrick DeWine Dickinson Dicks Dingell DioGuardi
Dorgan (ND) Dornan (CA) Dowdy Dreier Duncan Dyson Eckart (OH) Eckert (NY) Edwards (OK)
Emerson English Erdreich Evans (IA) Fiedler Fields Fish Flippo Florio Foley Ford (MI) Fowler Franklin Frenzel Frost Fuqua Gallo Gaydos Gekas Gilman Gingrich Glickman Goodling Gradison Gray (IL) Gregg
Gunderson Hall (OH) Hall, Ralph Hamilton Hammerschmidt Hansen Hartnett Hatcher Hefner Hendon
Hiler Hillis Holt Hopkins Horton Hubbard Huckaby Hunter Hutto Hyde Jeffords Jenkins Johnson Jones
(NC) Jones (OK) Jones (TN) Kanjorski Kasich Kemp Kindness Kolbe Kolter Kostmayer Kramer
Lagomarsino Lantos Latta Leach (IA) Leath (TX) Lent Lewis (CA) Lewis (FL) Lightfoot Livingston Lloyd
Loeffler Long Lott Lowery (CA) Luken Lundine Lungren Mack MacKay Madigan Marlenee Martin (IL)
Martin (NY) Mazzoli McCain McCandless McCloskey McCollum McCurdy McDade McEwen McGrath
McHugh McKernan McMillan Meyers Mica Michel Miller (OH) Mitchell Molinari Mollohan Monson
Montgomery Moore Moorhead Morrison (WA) Murphy Murtha Myers Natcher Neal Nelson Nielson
Nowak Oberstar Obey Olin Ortiz Oxley Packard Panetta Parris Pashayan Pease Penny Pepper Perkins Petri Pickle Pursell Quillen Rahall Ray Regula Reid Richardson Ridge Rinaldo Ritter Roberts Robinson
Roemer Rogers Rose Roth Roukema Rowland (CT) Rowland (GA) Rudd Saxton Schaefer Schneider
Schuette Sensenbrenner Sharp Shaw Shelby Shumway Shuster Sikorski Siljander Sisisky Skeen
Skelton Slattery Slaughter Smith (IA) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith, Denny (OR) Smith, Robert (NH) Smith, Robert (OR) Snowe Snyder Solomon Spence Staggers Stallings Stangeland Stenholm Strang
Stump Sundquist Sweeney Swift Swindall Synar Tallon Tauke Tauzin Taylor Thomas (CA) Thomas
(GA) Traxler Valentine Vander Jagt Volkmer Vucanovich Walker Watkins Weaver Weber Whitley
Whittaker Whitten Williams Wilson Wirth Wise Wolf Wortley Wyden Wylie Yatron Young (AK) Young
(FL) Young (MO) Zschau
NOT VOTING-12
Addabbo Boulter Gephardt Grotberg Heftel Ireland Lujan Nichols O’Brien Schulze Stokes Wright
11:15 a.m.
Mr. RITTER and Mr. RINALDO changed their votes from “aye” to “no.” Mr. LELAND and Mr. HOYER changed their votes from “no” to “aye.” So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. WEISS. Mr. Chairman, on April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis, TN. I find it bitterly ironic that 18 years later almost to the day, this body is gutting the 1968 Gun Control Act, the law that was put in place to stop exactly this kind of senseless violence. In fact, it seems that most Members have completely forgotten the reason why we have gun control laws in the first place. Eighteen years ago, our country was shocked by the brutal assassinations of two of its most brilliant young leaders-Reverend King, the man who revolutionized civil rights laws in this country and became the youngest person ever to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and Robert Kennedy, our great New York Senator, former Attorney General, and brother of the President who himself was slain.
In the wake of these tragic events, this Nation came to its senses and realized that laws were needed to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous individuals. And Americans realized that any small inconvenience to gun dealers and hunters that resulted from minimal gun control laws would be vastly outweighed by the benefits of keeping the wrong guns out of the wrong hands. If anything, the events of the last few years show the need to strengthen, not dilute our gun control laws. Despite the controls enacted earlier, we have again been witness to a series of shocking handgun crimes, including the assassination of one of our dear friends and distinguished colleague, Allard Lowenstein, and of course, the assassination attempt on President Reagan. It is revealing that John Hinckley, the man who shot President Reagan and Jim Brady, was found by the courts to be insane, and hence, not guilty. But nothing in the law kept him from getting a handgun. Even the Attorney General’s Task Force on Violent Crime called for tightening gun control laws, and instituting a waiting period before the purchase of handguns, to allow time for background record checks. Congress, at the behest of the NRA, has committeed a national disgrace by eviscerating our Nation’s gun control laws. The memories of Dr. King, of Senator Robert Kennedy, and of President Kennedy deserve much, much better.
11:30 a.m.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired for consideration of the Hughes amendment to the Volkmer substitute.
For what purpose does the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr. HUGHES> rise?
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Chairman, I made the motion to rise so that I could get additional time for the Rules Committee to finish debate on a number of amendments that were noticed, have not been reached and will not be heard, and that is unfortunate. It is an important matter.
My unanimous-consent request is that I have 5 minutes to explain this vote.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. A point of order. Mr. Chairman, that is not a proper inquiry.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Regular order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his unanimous-consent request.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, my unanimous request is that I have 5 minutes to explain this vote on machinegun bans.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?CCOLLUM Mr. MCCOLLUM. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman explain why he wants that 5 minutes?
Mr. HUGHES. So we can explain what is pending before the House.CCOLLUM Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr. HUGHES>? Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey < Mr. HUGHES> to the amendment, as amended, offered by the gentleman from Missouri <Mr. VOLKMER> as a substitute for the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment to the amendment, as amended, offered as a substitute for the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as amended, offered by the gentleman from Missouri <Mr. VOLKMER>, as a substitute for the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 286, noes 136, not voting 12, as follows:
<Roll No. 74>
AYES-286
Alexander Anderson Andrews Anthony Applegate Archer Armey Aspin AuCoin Badham Barnard
Bartlett Barton Bateman Bentley Bereuter Bevill Bilirakis Bliley Boehlert Boner (TN) Bonker Bosco
Boucher Breaux Brooks Brown (CO) Broyhill Bruce Bryant Burton (IN) Bustamante Byron Callahan
Campbell Carney Carr Chandler Chapman Chappell Chappie Cheney Clinger Coats Cobey Coble Coelho
Coleman (MO) Coleman (TX) Combest Cooper Courter Craig Crane Daniel Dannemeyer Darden
Daschle Daub Davis de la Garza DeLay Derrick DeWine Dickinson Dicks Dingell Dorgan (ND) Dornan
(CA) Dowdy Dreier Duncan Dyson Eckart (OH) Eckert (NY) Edwards (OK) Emerson English Erdreich
Evans (IA) Fiedler Fields Fish Flippo Foley Ford (MI) Ford (TN) Fowler Franklin Frenzel Fuqua Gallo
Gaydos Gekas Gilman Gingrich Glickman Goodling Gordon Gray (IL) Gregg Gunderson Hall, Ralph
Hamilton Hammerschmidt Hansen Hartnett Hatcher Hefner Hendon Hiler Holt Hopkins Horton Hubbard
Huckaby Hunter Hutto Hyde Jeffords Jenkins Johnson Jones (NC) Jones (OK) Jones (TN) Kanjorski
Kasich Kemp Kindness Kleczka Kolbe Kolter Kostmayer Kramer Lagomarsino Latta Leach (IA) Leath
(TX) Lehman (CA) Lent Lewis (CA) Lewis (FL) Lightfoot Livingston Lloyd Loeffler Long Lott Lowery
(CA) Luken Lundine Lungren Mack MacKay Madigan Marlenee Martin (IL) Martin (NY) McCain
McCandless McCloskey McCollum McCurdy McDade McEwen McGrath McKernan McMillan Meyers
Michel Miller (OH) Molinari Mollohan Monson Montgomery Moody Moore Moorhead Morrison (WA)
Murphy Murtha Myers Natcher Neal Nelson Nielson Oberstar Obey Olin Ortiz Oxley Packard Parris
Pashayan Pease Penny Perkins Petri Pickle Price Quillen Rahall Ray Regula Reid Richardson Ridge
Ritter Roberts Robinson Roemer Rogers Rose Roth Rowland (CT) Rowland (GA) Rudd Saxton Schaefer
Schuette Sensenbrenner Sharp Shaw Shelby Shumway Shuster Sikorski Siljander Sisisky Skeen
Skelton Slattery Slaughter Smith (IA) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith, Denny (OR) Smith, Robert (NH)
Smith, Robert (OR) Snowe Snyder Solomon Spence Spratt Staggers Stallings Stangeland Stenholm
Strang Stump Sundquist Sweeney Swift Swindall Synar Tallon Tauke Tauzin Taylor Thomas (CA)
Thomas (GA) Traxler Udall Valentine Vander Jagt Volkmer Vucanovich Walker Watkins Weaver Weber
Whitley Whittaker Whitten Williams Wilson Wirth Wise Wolf Wortley Wyden Yatron Young (AK) Young
(FL) Young (MO) Zschau
NOES-136
Ackerman Akaka Annunzio Atkins Barnes Bates Bedell Beilenson Bennett Berman Biaggi Boland Bonior (MI) Borski Boxer Broomfield Brown (CA) Burton (CA) Carper Clay Collins Conte Conyers
Coughlin Coyne Crockett Dellums DioGuardi Dixon Donnelly Downey Durbin Dwyer Dymally Early Edgar Edwards (CA) Evans (IL) Fascell Fawell Fazio Feighan Florio Foglietta Frank Frost Garcia
Gejdenson Gibbons Gonzalez Gradison Gray (PA) Green Guarini Hall (OH) Hawkins Hayes Henry
Hertel Hillis Howard Hoyer Hughes Jacobs Kaptur Kastenmeier Kennelly Kildee LaFalce Lantos Lehman
(FL) Leland Levin (MI) Levine (CA) Lipinski Lowry (WA) Manton Markey Martinez Matsui Mavroules
Mazzoli McHugh McKinney Mica Mikulski Miller (CA) Miller (WA) Mineta Mitchell Moakley Morrison (CT)
Mrazek Nowak Oakar Owens Panetta Pepper Porter Pursell Rangel Rinaldo Rodino Roe Rostenkowski
Roukema Roybal Russo Sabo Savage Scheuer Schneider Schroeder Schumer Seiberling Smith (FL)
Solarz St Germain Stark Stratton Studds Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Vento Visclosky Walgren
Waxman Weiss Wheat Whitehurst Wolpe Wright Wylie Yates
NOT VOTING-12
Addabbo Boggs Boulter Gephardt Grotberg Heftel Ireland Lujan Nichols O’Brien Schulze Stokes
11:45 a.m.
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Nichols for, with Mr. Heftel of Hawaii against.
Mr. Schulze for, with Mr. Gephardt against.
Mr. Ireland for, with Mr. Stokes against.
Mr. MAZZOLI and Mr. ANNUNZIO changed their votes from “aye” to “no.”
Messrs. TAUZIN, KLECZKA, and WIRTH changed their votes from “no” to “aye.”
So the amendment, as amended, offered as a substitute for the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. FORD of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 74 on the adoption of the Volkmer substitute to the Federal Firearms Law Reform Act, I inadvertently voted “aye.” I am strongly opposed to the provisions of the Volkmer substitute and meant to vote “no.”
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. RANGEL, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4332) to amend chapter 44 (relating to firearms) of title 18, United States Code, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 403, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. GREEN
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. GREEN. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. GREEN moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4332, to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-yeas 292, nays 130, not voting 12, as follows:
<Roll No. 75>
YEAS-292
Alexander Anderson Andrews Anthony Applegate Archer Armey Aspin AuCoin Badham Barnard
Bartlett Barton Bateman Bentley Bereuter Bevill Bilirakis Bliley Boehlert Boggs Boner (TN) Bonker
Bosco Boucher Breaux Brooks Brown (CO) Broyhill Bruce Bryant Burton (IN) Bustamante Byron
Callahan Campbell Carney Carr Chandler Chapman Chappell Chappie Cheney Clinger Coats Cobey
Coble Coelho Coleman (MO) Coleman (TX) Combest Conte Cooper Courter Craig Crane Daniel
Dannemeyer Darden Daschle Daub Davis de la Garza DeLay Derrick DeWine Dickinson Dicks Dingell
Dorgan (ND) Dornan (CA) Dowdy Dreier Duncan Dyson Eckart (OH) Eckert (NY) Edwards (OK)
Emerson English Erdreich Evans (IA) Fiedler Fields Fish Flippo Florio Foley Ford (MI) Fowler Franklin Frenzel Fuqua Gallo Gaydos Gekas Gilman Gingrich Glickman Goodling Gordon Gray (IL) Gregg
Gunderson Hall, Ralph Hamilton Hammerschmidt Hansen Hartnett Hatcher Hefner Hendon Hiler Hillis
Holt Hopkins Horton Hubbard Huckaby Hunter Hutto Hyde Jeffords Jenkins Johnson Jones (NC) Jones
(OK) Jones (TN) Kanjorski Kasich Kemp Kindness Kleczka Kolbe Kolter Kostmayer Kramer
Lagomarsino Lantos Latta Leach (IA) Leath (TX) Lehman (CA) Lent Lewis (CA) Lewis (FL) Lightfoot
Livingston Lloyd Loeffler Long Lott Lowery (CA) Luken Lundine Lungren Mack MacKay Madigan
Marlenee Martin (IL) Martin (NY) Mazzoli McCain McCandless McCloskey McCollum McCurdy McDade
McEwen McGrath McKernan McMillan Meyers Michel Miller (OH) Molinari Mollohan Monson Montgomery
Moody Moore Moorhead Morrison (WA) Murphy Murtha Myers Natcher Neal Nelson Nielson Oberstar
Obey Olin Ortiz Oxley Packard Parris Pashayan Pease Penny Perkins Petri Pickle Price Quillen Rahall
Ray Regula Reid Richardson Ridge Rinaldo Ritter Roberts Robinson Roemer Rogers Rose Roth Rowland
(CT) Rowland (GA) Rudd Saxton Schaefer Schuette Sensenbrenner Sharp Shaw Shelby Shumway
Shuster Sikorski Siljander Sisisky Skeen Skelton Slattery Slaughter Smith (IA) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ)
Smith, Denny (OR) Smith, Robert (NH) Smith, Robert (OR) Snowe Snyder Solomon Spence Spratt
Staggers Stallings Stangeland Stenholm Strang Stump Sundquist Sweeney Swift Swindall Synar
Tallon Tauke Tauzin Taylor Thomas (CA) Thomas (GA) Traxler Udall Valentine Vander Jagt Volkmer
Vucanovich Walker Watkins Weaver Weber Whitley Whittaker Whitten Williams Wilson Wirth Wise
Wolf Wortley Wyden Yatron Young (AK) Young (FL) Young (MO) Zschau
NAYS-130
Ackerman Akaka Annunzio Atkins Barnes Bates Bedell Beilenson Bennett Berman Biaggi Boland
Bonior (MI) Borski Boxer Broomfield Brown (CA) Burton (CA) Carper Clay Collins Conyers Coughlin
Coyne Crockett Dellums DioGuardi Dixon Donnelly Downey Durbin Dwyer Dymally Early Edgar
Edwards (CA) Evans (IL) Fascell Fawell Fazio Feighan Foglietta Ford (TN) Frank Frost Garcia
Gejdenson Gibbons Gonzalez Gradison Gray (PA) Green Guarini Hall (OH) Hawkins Hayes Henry
Hertel Howard Hoyer Hughes Jacobs Kaptur Kastenmeier Kennelly Kildee LaFalce Lehman (FL) Leland
Levin (MI) Levine (CA) Lipinski Lowry (WA) Manton Markey Martinez Matsui Mavroules McHugh
McKinney Mica Mikulski Miller (CA) Miller (WA) Mineta Mitchell Moakley Morrison (CT) Mrazek Nowak
Oakar Owens Panetta Pepper Porter Pursell Rangel Rodino Roe Rostenkowski Roukema Roybal Russo
Sabo Savage Scheuer Schneider Schroeder Schumer Seiberling Smith (FL) Solarz St Germain Stark Stratton Studds Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Vento Visclosky Walgren Waxman Weiss Wheat
Whitehurst Wright Wylie Yates
NOT VOTING-12
Addabbo Boulter Gephardt Grotberg Heftel Ireland Lujan Nichols O’Brien Schulze Stokes Wolpe 12:05 p.m.
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Nichols for, with Mr. Heftel of Hawaii against.
Mr. Schulze for, with Mr. Gephardt against.
Mr. Ireland for, with Mr. Stokes against.
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. BOLAND). Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 403, the Committee on the Judiciary is discharged from the further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 49) to protect firearms owners’ constitutional rights, civil liberties, and rights to privacy. The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. HUGHES
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. HUGHES moves to strike out all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill, S. 49, and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 4332, as passed by the House, as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
- SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the “Firearms Owners’ Protection Act”.
- CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.-The Congress finds that- (1) the rights of citizens-
- to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United States Constitution;
- to security against illegal and unreasonable searches and seizures under the fourth amendment; (C) against uncompensated taking of property, double jeopardy, and assurance of due process of law under the fifth amendment; and
(D) against unconstitutional exercise of authority under the ninth and tenth amendments; require additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes and enforcement policies; and (2) additional legislation is required to reaffirm the intent of the Congress, as expressed in section 101 of the Gun Control Act of 1968, that “it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”.
SEC. 101. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 921.
Section 921 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-
- in subsection (a)(10), by striking out “manufacture of” and inserting in lieu thereof “business of manufacturing”;
- in subsection (a)(11)(A), by striking out “or ammunition”;
- in subsection (a)(12), by striking out “or ammunition”;
- in subsection (a)(13), by striking out “or ammunition”;
- by amending paragraph (20) of subsection (a) to read as follows:
“(20) The term ‘crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year’ does not include- “(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or
“(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.
What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil
rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.”; and (6) in subsection (a), by inserting after paragraph (20) the following new paragraphs:
“(21) The term ‘engaged in the business’ means-
“(A) as applied to a manufacturer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms manufactured;
“(B) as applied to a manufacturer of ammunition, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the ammunition manufactured;
“(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;
“(D) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(B), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to engaging in such activity as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional repairs of firearms or who occasionally fits special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms;
“(E) as applied to an importer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to importing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms imported; and
“(F) as applied to an importer of ammunition, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to importing ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the ammunition imported.
“(22) The term ‘with the principal objective of livelihood and profit’ means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection. “(23) The term ‘machinegun’ has the meaning given such term in section 5845(b) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(b)).
“(24) The terms ‘firearm silencer’ and ‘firearm muffler’ means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.”.
SEC. 102. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 922.
Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended- (1) so that paragraph (1) of subsection (a) reads as follows:
“(1) for any person-
“(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce; or
“(B) except a licensed importer or licensed manufacturer, to engage in the business of importing or manufacturing ammunition, or in the course of such business, to ship, transport, or receive any ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce;”;
- in subsection (a)(2)-
“(A) by striking out “or ammunition”; and
“(B) by striking out “or licensed dealer for the sole purpose of repair or customizing;” and inserting in lieu thereof “licensed dealer, or licensed collector;”;
- in subsection (a)(3), by striking out “(B)” and all that follows through “(b)(3) of this section,” and inserting in lieu thereof the following: “(B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section,”;
- in subsection (b)-
- in paragraph (2), by striking out “or ammunition” each place it appears;
- in paragraph (3), by striking out “(A)” and all that follows through ” intrastate transactions other than at the licensee’s business premises,” and inserting in lieu thereof “(A) shall not apply to the sale or delivery of any rifle or shotgun to a resident of a State other than a State in which the licensee’s place of business is located if the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the transfer, and the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States (and any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer shall be presumed, for purposes of this subparagraph, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have had actual knowledge of the State laws and published ordinances of both States),”; (C) in paragraph (3), by inserting “and” before “(B)”;
- in paragraph (3), by striking out “, and (C)” and all that follows through the end of such paragraph and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon; and
- in paragraph (5), by striking out “or ammunition except .22 caliber rimfire ammunition” and inserting “or armor-piercing ammunition” in lieu thereof;
(5) in subsection (d)-
(A) by striking out “licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector” the first place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof “person”; (B) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
“(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));”;
(C) in paragraph (4), by striking out the period and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon; and (D) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
“(5) who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
“(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; or
“(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship.”;
(6) in subsection (g)-
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking out “is under indictment for, or who”; (B) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
“(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));”;
(C) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new paragraphs:
“(5) who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
“(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; or
“(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;”; and (D) by striking out “to ship or transport any firearm or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce.” and inserting in lieu thereof “to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”; (7) so that subsection (h) reads as follows:
“(h) It shall be unlawful for any individual, who to that individual’s knowledge and while being employed for any person described in any paragraph of subsection (g) of this section, in the course of such employment-
“(1) to receive, possess, or transport any firearm or ammunition in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce; or
“(2) to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”;
- by inserting after subsection (m) the following:
“(n) It shall be unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”; and
- by inserting after the subsection added by paragraph (8) of this section the following:
“(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
“(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to-
“(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or “(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.”.
SEC. 103. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 923.
Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended- (1) in subsection (a)-
- by striking out the first sentence and inserting in lieu thereof “No person shall engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or importing or manufacturing ammunition, until he has filed an application with and received a license to do so from the Secretary.”; and
- by striking out “and contain such information”, and inserting in lieu thereof “and contain only that information necessary to determine eligibility for licensing.”;
- in subsection (a)(3)(B), by striking out “or ammunition for firearms other than destructive devices,”;
- in subsection (b), by striking out “and contain such information” and inserting in lieu thereof “and contain only that information necessary to determine eligibility”;
- in subsection (c), by adding at the end “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer from maintaining and disposing of a personal collection of firearms, subject only to such restrictions as apply in this chapter to dispositions by a person other than a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer. If any firearm is so disposed of by a licensee within one year after its transfer from his business inventory into such licensee’s personal collection or if such disposition or any other acquisition is made for the purpose of willfully evading the restrictions placed upon licensees by this chapter, then such fiream shall be deemed part of such licensee’s business inventory.”;
- in subsection (e), by inserting “willfully” before “violated”;
- in subsection (f)- (A) in paragraph (3)-
- by inserting “de novo” before “judicial”; and
- by inserting “whether or not such evidence was considered at the hearing held under paragraph
(2).” after “to the proceeding”; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
“(4) If criminal proceedings are instituted against a licensee alleging any violation of this chapter or of rules or regulations prescribed under this chapter, and the licensee is acquitted of such charges, or such proceedings are terminated, other than upon motion of the Government before trial upon such charges, the Secretary shall be absolutely barred from denying or revoking any license granted under this chapter where such denial or revocation is based in whole or in part on the facts which form the basis of such criminal charges. No proceedings for the revocation of a license shall be instituted by the Secretary more than one year after the filing of the indictment or information.”; (7) so that subsection (g) reads as follows:
“(g)(1)(A) Each licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, and licensed dealer shall maintain such records of importation, production, shipment, receipt, sale, or other disposition of firearms at his place of business for such period, and in such form, as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. Such importers, manufacturers, and dealers shall not be required to submit to the Secretary reports and information with respect to such records and the contents thereof, except as expressly required by this section. The Secretary, when he has reasonable cause to believe a violation of this chapter has occurred and that evidence thereof may be found on such premises, may, upon demonstrating such cause before a Federal magistrate and securing from such magistrate a warrant authorizing entry, enter during business hours the premises (including places of storage) of any licensed firearms importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, licensed collector, or any licensed importer or manufacturer of ammunition, for the purpose of inspecting or examining-
“(i) any records or documents required to be kept by such licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector under this chapter or rules or regulations under this chapter, and “(ii) any firearms or ammunition kept or stored by such licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, at such premises.
“(B) The Secretary may inspect or examine the inventory and records of a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer without such reasonable cause or warrant-
“(i) in the course of a reasonable inquiry during the course of a criminal investigation of a person or persons other than the licensee;
“(ii) for ensuring compliance with the record keeping requirements of this chapter not more than once during any 12-month period; or
“(iii) when such inspection or examination may be required for determining the disposition of one or more particular firearms in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation.
“(C) The Secretary may inspect the inventory and records of a licensed collector without such reasonable cause or warrant-
“(i) for ensuring compliance with the record keeping requirements of this chapter not more than once during any 12-month period; or
“(ii) when such inspection or examination may be required for determining the disposition of one or more particular firearms in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation.
“(D) At the election of a licensed collector, the annual inspection of records and inventory permitted under this paragraph shall be performed at the office of the Secretary designated for such inspections which is located in closest proximity to the premises where the inventory and records of such licensed collector are maintained. The inspection and examination authorized by this paragraph shall not be construed as authorizing the Secretary to seize any records or other documents other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law. If the Secretary seizes such records or documents, copies shall be provided the licensee within a reasonable time. The Secretary may make available to any Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency any information which he may obtain by reason of this chapter with respect to the identification of persons prohibited from purchasing or receiving firearms or ammunition who have purchased or received firearms or ammunition, together with a description of such firearms or ammunition, and he may provide information to the extent such information may be contained in the records required to be maintained by this chapter, when so requested by any Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency. “(2) Each licensed collector shall maintain in a bound volume the nature of which the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, records of the receipt, sale, or other disposition of firearms. Such records shall include the name and address of any person to whom the collector sells or otherwise disposes of a firearm. Such collector shall not be required to submit to the Secretary reports and information with respect to such records and the contents thereof, except as expressly required by this section. “(3) Each licensee shall prepare a report of multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of, at one time or during any five consecutive business days, two or more pistols, or revolvers, or any combination of pistols and revolvers totalling two or more, to an unlicensed person. The report shall be prepared on a form specified by the Secretary and forwarded to the office specified thereon not later than the close of business on the day that the multiple sale or other disposition occurs.
“(4) Where a firearms or ammunition business is discontinued and succeeded by a new licensee, the records required to be kept by this chapter shall appropriately reflect such facts and shall be delivered to the successor. Where discontinuance of the business is absolute, such records shall be delivered within 30 days after the business discontinuance to the Secretary. However, where State law or local ordinance requires the delivery of records to other responsible authority, the Secretary may arrange for the delivery of such records to such other responsible authority.
“(5)(A) Each licensee shall, when required by letter issued by the Secretary, and until notified to the contrary in writing by the Secretary, submit on a form specified by the Secretary, for periods and at the times specified in such letter, all record information required to be kept by this chapter or such lesser record information as the Secretary in such letter may specify.
“(B) The Secretary may authorize such record information to be submitted in a manner other than that prescribed in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph when it is shown by a licensee that an alternate method of reporting is reasonably necessary and will not unduly hinder the effective administration of this chapter. A licensee may use an alternate method of reporting if the licensee describes the proposed alternate method of reporting and the need therefor in a letter application submitted to the Secretary, and the Secretary approves such alternate method of reporting.”; and (8) So that subsection (j) reads as follows:
“(j) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer may, under rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary, conduct business temporarily at a location other than the location specified on the license if such temporary location is the location for a gun show or event sponsored by any national, State, or local organization, or any affiliate of any such organization devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community, and such location is in the State which is specified on the license. Records of receipt and disposition of firearms transactions conducted at such temporary location shall include the location of the sale or other disposition and shall be entered in the permanent records of the licensee and retained on the location specified on the license. Nothing in this subsection shall authorize any licensee to conduct business in or from any motorized or towed vehicle. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, a separate fee shall not be required of a licensee with respect to business conducted under this subsection. Any inspection or examination of inventory or records under this chapter by the Secretary at such temporary location shall be limited to inventory consisting of, or records relating to, firearms held or disposed at such temporary location. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize the Secretary to inspect or examine the inventory or records of a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer at any location other than the location specified on the license. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to diminish in any manner any right to display, sell, or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition, which is in effect before the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act.”.
SEC. 104. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 924.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended- (1) so that subsection (a) reads as follows:
“(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, subsection (b) or (c) of this section, or in section 929, whoever-
“(A) knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter or in applying for any license or exemption or relief from disability under the provisions of this chapter; “(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (a)(6), (f), (g), (i), (j), or (k) of section 922;
“(C) knowingly imports or brings into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition in violation of section 922(1); or
“(D) willfully violates any other provision of this chapter,
shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than five years, or both, and shall become eligible for parole as the Parole Commission shall determine.
“(2) Any licensed dealer, licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed collector who knowingly-
“(A) makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by the provisions of this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter; or “(B) violates subsection (m) of section 922, shall be fined not more than $1,000, imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and shall become eligible for parole as the Parole Commission shall determine.”; (2) in subsection (c)-
- by inserting “(1)” before “Whoever,”;
- by striking out “violence” each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof “violence or drug trafficking crime,”;
- by inserting “or drug trafficking crime” before “in which the firearm was used or carried.”;
- in the first sentence, by striking out the period at the end and inserting in lieu thereof “, and if the firearm is a machinegun, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to imprisonment for 10 years.”;
- in the second sentence, by striking out the period at the end and inserting in lieu thereof “, and if the firearm is a machinegun, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to imprisonment for 20 years.”; and (F) by adding at the end the following:
“(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘drug trafficking crime’ means any felony violation of Federal law involving the distribution, manufacture, or importation of any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).
“(3) For purposes of this subsection the term ‘crime of violence’ means an offense that is a felony and-
“(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
“(B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”; (3) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
“(d)(1) Any firearm or ammunition involved in or used in any knowing violation of subsection (a)(4),
(a)(6), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (k) of section 922, or knowing importation or bringing into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition in violation of section 922(l), or knowing violation of section 924, or willful violation of any other provision of this chapter or any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, or any violation of any other criminal law of the United States, or any firearm or ammunition intended to be used in any offense referred to in paragraph (3) of this subsection, where such intent is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture, and all provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 relating to the seizure, forfeiture, and disposition of firearms, as defined in section 5845(a) of that Code, shall, so far as applicable, extend to seizures and forfeitures under the provisions of this chapter: Provided, That upon acquittal of the owner or possessor, or dismissal of the charges against him other than upon motion of the Government prior to trial, the seized firearms or ammunition shall be returned forthwith to the owner or possessor or to a person delegated by the owner or possessor unless the return of the firearms or ammunition would place the owner or possessor or his delegate in violation of law. Any action or proceeding for the forfeiture of firearms or ammunition shall be commenced within one hundred and twenty days of such seizure.
“(2)(A) In any action or proceeding for the return of firearms or ammunition seized under the provisions of this chapter, the court shall allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee, and the United States shall be liable therefor.
“(B) In any other action or proceeding under the provisions of this chapter, the court, when it finds that such action was without foundation, or was initiated vexatiously, frivolously, or in bad faith, shall allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee, and the United States shall be liable therefor.
“(C) Only these firearms or quantities of ammunition particularly named and individually identified as involved in or used in any violation of the provisions of this chapter or any rule or regulation issued, thereunder, or any other criminal law of the United States or as intended to be used in any offense referred to in paragraph (3) of this subsection, where such intent is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, shall be subject to seizure, forfeiture, and disposition.”.
“(D) The United States shall be liable for attorneys’ fees under this paragraph only to the extent provided in advance by appropriations Acts.”
“(3) The offenses referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2)(C) of this subsection are- “(A) any crime of violence, as that term is defined in section 924(c)(3) of this title;
“(B) any offense punishable under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) or the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 951 et seq.);
“(C) any offense described in section 922(a)(1), 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5), or 922(b)(3) of this title, where the firearm or ammunition intended to be used in any such offense is involved in a pattern of activities which includes a violation of any offense described in section 922(a)(1), 922(a)(3), 922(a) (5), or 922(b)(3) of this title;
“(D) any offense described in section 922(d) of this title where the firearm or ammunition is intended to be used in such offense by the transferor of such firearm or ammunition;
“(E) any offense described in section 922(i), 922(j), 922(l), 922(n), or 924(b) of this title; and “(F) any offense which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States which involves the exportation of firearms or ammunition”; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
“(e)(1) In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of this title and has three previous convictions by any court referred to in section 922(g)(1) of this title for robbery or burglary, or both, such person shall be fined not more than $25,000 and imprisoned not less than 15 years, and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall not suspend the sentence of, or grant a probationary sentence to, such person with respect to the conviction under section 922(g), and such person shall not be eligible for parole with respect to the sentence imposed under this subsection.
“(2) As used in this subsection-
“(A) the term ‘robbery’ means any crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year and consisting of the taking of the property of another from the person or presence of another by force or violence, or by threatening or placing another person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to bodily harm; and
“(B) the term ‘burglary’ means any crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year and consisting of entering or remaining surreptitiously within a building that is the property of another with intent to engage in conduct constituting a Federal or State offense.”.
(b) CONFORMING REPEAL.-Title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. App. 1201 et seq.) is repealed.
SEC. 105. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 925.
Section 925 of title 18, United States Code, is amended- (1) in subsection (c)-
- by striking out “has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (other than a crime involving the use of a firearm or other weapon or a violation of this chapter or of the National Firearms Act)” and inserting in lieu thereof “is prohibited from possessing, shipping transporting, or receiving firearms or ammunition”;
- by inserting “transportation,” after “shipment,”;
- by striking out “and incurred by reason of such conviction”; and
- by inserting “Any person whose application for relief from disabilities is denied by the Secretary may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in which he resides for a judicial review of such denial. The court may in its discretion admit additional evidence where failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice.” after “the public interest.”; and (2) in subsection (d)-
- by striking out “may authorize” and inserting in lieu thereof “shall authorize”;
- by striking out “the person importing or bringing in the firearm or ammunition establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that”;
- in paragraph (3), by inserting before the semicolon “, except in any case where the Secretary has not authorized the importation of the firearm pursuant to this paragraph, it shall be unlawful to import any frame, receiver, or barrel of such firearm which would be prohibited if assembled”; and (D) by striking out “may permit” and inserting in lieu thereof “shall permit”.
SEC. 106. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 926.
Section 926 of title 18 of the United States Code is amended- (1) by inserting “(a)” before “The Secretary” the first place it occurs;
- by inserting “only” after “prescribe”;
- by striking out “as he deems reasonably” and inserting in lieu thereof ” as are”;
- by striking out the last sentence and inserting in lieu thereof “No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.”; and
- by adding at the end the following:
“(b) The Secretary shall give not less than 90 days public notice, and shall afford interested parties opportunity for hearing, before prescribing such rules and regulations.
“(c) The Secretary shall not prescribe rules or regulations that require purchasers of black powder under the exemption provided in section 845(a)(5) of this title to complete affidavits or forms attesting to that exemption.”.
SEC. 107. TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS.
- IN GENERAL.-Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting between section 926 and section 927 the following new section:
“s 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms
“Any person not prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport an unloaded, not readily accessible firearm in interstate commerce notwithstanding any provision of any legislation enacted, or any rule or regulation prescribed by any State or political subdivision thereof.”.
- CLERICAL AMENDMENT.-The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting between the item relating to section 926 and the item relating to section 927 the following new item:
“926A. Interstate transportation of firearms.”.
SEC. 108. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 929.
Section 929(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended- (1) by inserting “(1)” before “Whoever,”;
- by striking out “violence” each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof “violence or drug trafficking crime,”; and
- by adding at the end the following:
“(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘drug trafficking crime’ means any felony violation of Federal law involving the distribution, manufacture, or importation of any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).”.
SEC. 109. AMENDMENT OF NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT.
- Section 5845(b) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(b)) is amended by striking out “any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,” and inserting in lieu thereof ” any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun,”.
- CONFORMING AMENDMENT.-Section 5845(a)(7) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a ) (7)) is amended to read “(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code);”.
SEC. 110. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) IN GENERAL.-The amendments made by this Act shall become effective 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Upon their becoming effective, the Secretary shall publish and provide to all licensees a compilation of the State laws and published ordinances of which licensees are presumed to have knowledge pursuant to chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this Act. All amendments to such State laws and published ordinances as contained in the aforementioned compilation shall be published in the Federal Register, revised annually, and furnished to each person licensed under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this Act. (b) PENDING ACTIONS, PETITIONS, AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS.-The amendments made by
sections 103(6)(B), 105, and 107 of this Act shall be applicable to any action, petition, or appellate proceeding pending on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) MACHINEGUN PROHIBITION.-Section 102(9) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
The motion was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed. The title of the Senate bill was amended so as to read: “An Act to amend chapter 44 (relating to firearms) of title 18, United States Code, and for other purposes.” A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
A similar House bill (H.R. 4332) was laid on the table. 132 Cong. Rec. H1741-06, 1986 WL 780741 (Cong.Rec.) END OF DOCUMENT
Adobe Reader is required to view PDF images.
(c) 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
