Bills

Bill Summary (Congressional Research Service):

Shown Here:
Passed Senate (04/22/2021)

COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act

This bill requires a designated officer or employee of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to facilitate the expedited review of hate crimes and reports of hate crimes.

DOJ must issue guidance for state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies on establishing online hate crime reporting processes, collecting data disaggregated by protected characteristic (e.g., race or national origin), and expanding education campaigns.

Additionally, DOJ and the Department of Health and Human Services must issue guidance aimed at raising awareness of hate crimes during the COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic.

The bill establishes grants for states to create state-run hate crimes reporting hotlines. It also authorizes grants for states and local governments to implement the National Incident-Based Reporting System and to conduct law enforcement activities or crime reduction programs to prevent, address, or respond to hate crimes.

Finally, in the case of an individual convicted of a hate crime offense and placed on supervised release, the bill allows a court to order that the individual participate in educational classes or community service as a condition of supervised release.

Freedom First Society Analysis:   Every paragraph in the “Bill Summary” above cites a provision or provisions of the legislation that are simply unconstitutional.  For example:  “The bill establishes grants” enables the federal government to “buy” state “subservience” to its campaign against “hate crime,” a reversal of the state-federal government relationship intended by America’s Founding Fathers.

One, will look in vain for any federal authority to intrude into such purely state matters.  Nevertheless, there is already a body of federal law allowing federal prosecution of certain hate crimes, which this Act would build on (e.g., Title I of the Civil Rights Act or 1968).

And the last paragraph, allowing a court to provide conditions of probation is an absolutely audacious case of federal overreach.

Instead of chasing hate crime, the federal government should focus on “undoing” its attack on religion and the family, which has spawned an increase in violent criminals.  In his 1969 book, Journey into Darkness, John Douglas, the legendary FBI profiler and expert on the criminal personality, argued:

Unfortunately, no matter what we do with our criminal justice system, the only thing that is going to cut down appreciably on crimes of violence and depravity is to stop manufacturing as many criminals…. [T]he real struggle must be where it has always been: in the home.

And the home has been the target of the liberal agenda for decades.

The leadership to reduce criminal violence has to come from an informed electorate, inspiring legislators to dance to a different tune.

From the Congressional Record (5-8-21) [Emphasis added]:

Although 62 GOP representatives voted against the COVID-19 Hates Crime Act, few took the floor to voice their opposition in these sham “debates.”   Perhaps the most sense was offered by Rep. Chip Roy, whom we quote next: 

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas):

“Madam Speaker, nobody in this Chamber believes that there isn’t work to do in the area of ensuring that crimes are not committed against any American but, in particular, due to their race, their color, their national origin, or anything about who they are.

“Many on this side of the aisle, including the gentlewoman who spoke before from California, raised concern about the sort of nature of this legislation and a lot of the concerns that have been raised about its continued focus on hate crimes in many ways at the expense of our focusing on crime, crime itself.

“In the findings in this piece of legislation, of course, we reference the terrible tragedy that unfolded in Atlanta, Georgia, and much of that was a rush to be included in the form of hate crimes when the facts being borne out in the investigation among prosecutors and the investigators in Georgia are indicating that that was not at all or didn’t seem to be the motivation. And I use careful words like “seem to be” because, as a former Federal prosecutor, I like to wait until you do the investigation before you jump to the conclusion of what the motive was or what actually went into the crime at hand….

“I think we do our Nation a disservice when we spend every waking moment on this floor divvying us up by race. Increasingly, that is what we are doing.

“This legislation is well-intended, but this legislation, in the eyes of many in this body, is flawed, in terms of having in it things like the Health Equity Task Force or designate an officer or employee at DOJ whose responsibility shall be to facilitate the expedited review of hate crimes. We have provisions in the legislation to encourage the collection of data, encourage local law enforcement to collect data on hate crimes, but to seek to do so specifically to focus on hate crimes.

“It is the contention of many of my colleagues that this is, in fact, a continued focus of division in our country, rather than focusing on the fact of the crime itself, the murder itself.”

Freedom First Society:  Well said, Mr. Roy.  However, we think you are unnecessarily generous to say the legislation is well intended.

Bill Summary (Congressional Research Service):

Shown Here:
Passed Senate (04/22/2021)

COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act

This bill requires a designated officer or employee of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to facilitate the expedited review of hate crimes and reports of hate crimes.

DOJ must issue guidance for state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies on establishing online hate crime reporting processes, collecting data disaggregated by protected characteristic (e.g., race or national origin), and expanding education campaigns.

Additionally, DOJ and the Department of Health and Human Services must issue guidance aimed at raising awareness of hate crimes during the COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic.

The bill establishes grants for states to create state-run hate crimes reporting hotlines. It also authorizes grants for states and local governments to implement the National Incident-Based Reporting System and to conduct law enforcement activities or crime reduction programs to prevent, address, or respond to hate crimes.

Finally, in the case of an individual convicted of a hate crime offense and placed on supervised release, the bill allows a court to order that the individual participate in educational classes or community service as a condition of supervised release.

Freedom First Society Analysis:   S. 937 was originally sponsored by Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI).  Subsequently, she and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), another very liberal senator, introduced an amendment to S. 937, S.Amdt. 1445, to make it “bipartisan,” which was accepted by unanimous consent.  It was this amended version that was accepted by both chambers and signed into law.

Every paragraph in the “Bill Summary” above cites a provision or provisions of the legislation that are simply unconstitutional.  For example:  “The bill establishes grants” enables the federal government to “buy” state “subservience” to its campaign against “hate crime,” a reversal of the state-federal government relationship intended by America’s Founding Fathers.

One, will look in vain for any federal authority to intrude into such purely state matters.  Nevertheless, there is already a body of federal law allowing federal prosecution of certain hate crimes, which this Act would build on (e.g., Title I of the Civil Rights Act or 1968).

And the last paragraph, allowing a court to provide conditions of probation is an absolutely audacious case of federal overreach.

Instead of chasing hate crime, the federal government should focus on “undoing” its attack on religion and the family, which has spawned an increase in violent criminals.  In his 1969 book, Journey into Darkness, John Douglas, the legendary FBI profiler and expert on the criminal personality, argued:

Unfortunately, no matter what we do with our criminal justice system, the only thing that is going to cut down appreciably on crimes of violence and depravity is to stop manufacturing as many criminals…. [T]he real struggle must be where it has always been: in the home.

And the home has been the target of the liberal agenda for decades.

The leadership to reduce criminal violence has to come from an informed electorate, inspiring legislators to dance to a different tune.

Bill Summary (Congressional Research Service):

Shown Here:
Passed Senate (04/22/2021)

COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act

This bill requires a designated officer or employee of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to facilitate the expedited review of hate crimes and reports of hate crimes.

DOJ must issue guidance for state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies on establishing online hate crime reporting processes, collecting data disaggregated by protected characteristic (e.g., race or national origin), and expanding education campaigns.

Additionally, DOJ and the Department of Health and Human Services must issue guidance aimed at raising awareness of hate crimes during the COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic.

The bill establishes grants for states to create state-run hate crimes reporting hotlines. It also authorizes grants for states and local governments to implement the National Incident-Based Reporting System and to conduct law enforcement activities or crime reduction programs to prevent, address, or respond to hate crimes.

Finally, in the case of an individual convicted of a hate crime offense and placed on supervised release, the bill allows a court to order that the individual participate in educational classes or community service as a condition of supervised release.

Freedom First Society Analysis:   S. 937 was originally sponsored by Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI).  Subsequently, she and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), another very liberal senator, introduced an amendment to S. 937, S.Amdt. 1445, to make it “bipartisan,” which was accepted by unanimous consent.  It was this amended version that was accepted by both chambers and signed into law.

Every paragraph in the “Bill Summary” above cites a provision or provisions of the legislation that are simply unconstitutional.  For example:  “The bill establishes grants” enables the federal government to “buy” state “subservience” to its campaign against “hate crime,” a reversal of the state-federal government relationship intended by America’s Founding Fathers.

One, will look in vain for any federal authority to intrude into such purely state matters.  Nevertheless, there is already a body of federal law allowing federal prosecution of certain hate crimes, which this Act would build on (e.g., Title I of the Civil Rights Act or 1968).

And the last paragraph, allowing a court to provide conditions of probation is an absolutely audacious case of federal overreach.

Instead of chasing hate crime, the federal government should focus on “undoing” its attack on religion and the family, which has spawned an increase in violent criminals.  In his 1969 book, Journey into Darkness, John Douglas, the legendary FBI profiler and expert on the criminal personality, argued:

Unfortunately, no matter what we do with our criminal justice system, the only thing that is going to cut down appreciably on crimes of violence and depravity is to stop manufacturing as many criminals…. [T]he real struggle must be where it has always been: in the home.

And the home has been the target of the liberal agenda for decades.

The leadership to reduce criminal violence has to come from an informed electorate, inspiring legislators to dance to a different tune.

Bill Summary (Congressional Research Service):
Shown Here:  Introduced in House (01/04/2021)
For the People Act of 2021

This bill addresses voter access, election integrity and security, campaign finance, and ethics for the three branches of government.

Specifically, the bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting). It also limits removing voters from voter rolls.

The bill requires states to establish independent redistricting commissions to carry out congressional redistricting.

Additionally, the bill sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems.

Further, the bill addresses campaign finance, including by expanding the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals, requiring additional disclosure of campaign-related fundraising and spending, requiring additional disclaimers regarding certain political advertising, and establishing an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices.

The bill addresses ethics in all three branches of government, including by requiring a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices, prohibiting Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, and establishing additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House.

The bill requires the President, the Vice President, and certain candidates for those offices to disclose 10 years of tax returns.

FFS Analysis:  The “For the People Act” was originally introduced in the previous Congress and then reintroduced in the new 117th. It is regarded as a signature piece of legislation by the Democrat House majority.

The second paragraph of the above CRS Summary tells us enough to know that this is horrible legislation:  “Specifically, the bill expands voter registration (e.g., automatic and same-day registration) and voting access (e.g., vote-by-mail and early voting). It also limits removing voters from voter rolls.”

H.R. 1 is clearly an unconstitutional federal intervention in state matters, imposing new federal mandates on the states and removing the ability of states to determine voter qualifications and the accuracy of voter registration rolls.  It would also undermine state procedures to protect election results.

The bottom line is that H.R. 1 is another attack by the socialist Left on the ability of our nation to elect conservatives and constitutionalists.

Bill Summary (Congressional Research Service): 
Shown Here:  Passed Senate (03/06/2021)
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
This bill provides additional relief to address the continued impact of COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019) on the economy, public health, state and local governments, individuals, and businesses.

Specifically, the bill provides funding for

• agriculture and nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the food stamp program);
• schools and institutions of higher education;
• child care and programs for older Americans and their families;
• COVID-19 vaccinations, testing, treatment, and prevention;
• mental health and substance-use disorder services;
• emergency rental assistance, homeowner assistance, and other housing programs;
• payments to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments for economic relief;
• multiemployer pension plans;
• small business assistance, including specific programs for restaurants and live venues;
• programs for health care workers, transportation workers, federal employees, veterans, and other targeted populations;
• international and humanitarian responses;
• tribal government services;
• scientific research and development;
• state, territorial, and tribal capital projects that enable work, education, and health monitoring in response to COVID-19; and
• health care providers in rural areas.

The bill also includes provisions that

• extend unemployment benefits and related services;
• make up to $10,200 of 2020 unemployment compensation tax-free;
• make student loan forgiveness tax-free through 2025;
• provide a maximum recovery rebate of $1,400 per eligible individual;
• expand and otherwise modify certain tax credits, including the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit;
• provide premium assistance for certain health insurance coverage; and
• require coverage, without cost-sharing, of COVID-19 vaccines and treatment under Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

Analysis (FFS):  As is evident from the CRS Summary above, the number of government programs packed into this so-called relief measure was enormous.  Aside from its bad economics, much is a continuation of federal programs not authorized in the Constitution.  It’s unfortunate that many Americans no longer understand the hook in phony socialist programs designed to appeal to shallow humanitarianism.

The Senate parliamentarian  ruled that a proposed $15 minimum wage increase could not be included as part of reconciliation, so it was deleted in the amended Senate version.  Indicative of the political demagoguery coming out of Washington, “Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., said on Twitter that she was ‘disgusted’ with some of her colleagues for the Senate changes, including the removal of a $15 minimum wage increase that was pulled after the Senate parliamentarian determined it violated that chamber’s rules.

‘What is the Party of the People doing when instead of putting our full effort into helping struggling working families, we’re arguing over ways to toss them aside?’ she wrote.” — Roll Call, 3-6-21

The fallacy in Watson’s rhetoric should be apparent after a moment’s reflection.  If government can simply create prosperity by dispensing money and regulation, why not give everybody $1 million so we can all live comfortably without working?

Bill Summary (Congressional Research Service):
Shown Here:  Public Law No: 117-1 (01/22/2021)
This bill allows the first person nominated and appointed as Secretary of Defense after 12 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) on January 20, 2021, to be a person who is, on the date of appointment, at least four years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of the Armed Forces. Under current law, an individual may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from such active duty.

Analysis (FFS):  The Senate cut short its time for debate, rushing to approval, so that Lloyd Austin could be confirmed the following day.  Only one Republican (Senator Susan Collins – Maine) and one Democrat (Senator Chris Van Hollen – Maryland) spoke regarding H.R. 335.  Accordingly, we urge readers to view our more extensive analysis of the earlier House vote (Roll Call 18).

Not all of the senators opposing H.R. 335 did so because of opposition to Austin himself, as the next-day’s confirmation vote made clear.  Indeed, only two Senators opposed the confirmation — Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Josh Hawley (R-Missouri).

Here are excerpts from the remarks of the two senators who spoke to H.R. 335:

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine):  Until Congress granted a waiver of this requirement in 2017 for General Mattis, Congress had approved a waiver only once before, in 1950 for General George Marshall. With the nomination of Gen. Lloyd Austin, what I had thought would be a once-in-a-generation waiver in 2017 now appears to be the start of an unwelcome trend.  To be clear, I do not believe that General Austin himself poses a specific risk to the civilian control of our military. By all accounts, he is a dedicated public servant and patriot with more than 40 years of successful military service. However, I do not believe that President Biden has offered a strong enough justification for granting another legislative waiver in so short a time.  Should a waiver for his service be approved over my objections, which appears likely to occur, I intend to support General Austin’s nomination based on his merits and qualifications.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland):  On the merits, I support the nomination of Lloyd Austin, and I believe that Mr. Austin is highly qualified for this role. However, the importance of civilian leadership at the Department of Defense is greater than any individual nominee.  The subordination of military authority to civil authority is a bedrock principle of our democracy. In 2017, when I voted against a waiver to allow James Mattis to serve as Secretary of Defense, I stressed that our Founders’ emphasis on civilian leadership distinguished the young United States from the other nations of the time. I also noted that in enacting the exception for General Marshall in 1950, Congress expressly stated that: “the authority granted by this Act is not to be construed as approval by the Congress of continuing appointments of military men to the office of Secretary of Defense in the future. It is hereby expressed as the sense of the Congress that after General Marshall leaves the office of secretary of defense, no additional appointments of military men to that office shall be approved.”

Bill Summary (Congressional Research Service):
Shown Here:  Public Law No: 117-1 (01/22/2021)
This bill allows the first person nominated and appointed as Secretary of Defense after 12 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) on January 20, 2021, to be a person who is, on the date of appointment, at least four years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of the Armed Forces. Under current law, an individual may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from such active duty.

Analysis:  Indeed, H.R. 335 was specifically designed to allow Lloyd Austin to become Biden’s Secretary of Defense.  Section 1b of the measure states: “Limited Exception. —This section applies only to the first person nominated after 12 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) on January 20, 2021, and appointed as Secretary of Defense as described in subsection (a), and to no other person.”

In introducing the measure before the House, the sponsor, Rep. Adam Smith, argued:

“Mr. Speaker, this is the bill that will grant a waiver, an exemption, to Lloyd Austin to be nominated and confirmed as the Secretary of Defense. This is required because there is a law on the books that says that you must be 7 years separated from military service in order to serve as Secretary of Defense.

“Mr. Austin has been out for almost 5 years, but does not meet the 7-year requirement. So we need to pass this law to give him that exemption.

“Now, this is not an easy question. Civilian control of the military is enormously important. That is why this law was put in place. But in looking at this, I feel there are three basic questions:

“Number one, does the nominee in question understand and reassure us in the House–for the purposes of our vote on this portion of the waiver — that he understands and is committed to civilian control of the military?

  “Second, is there something about this particular nominee that makes it important to grant this exclusion, to grant this waiver?

“And, third, is the individual qualified for the job? Because I do believe that that is important, and the details of their history is important in deciding that.

“And I have, after a lot of thought and a lot of conversations with Mr. Austin and others, concluded that all three of those criteria are met in this instance.” [Emphasis added]

We look at Rep. Smith’s support for his second reason “something about this particular nominee that makes it important to grant … this waiver”:

“And then there is the second issue: Why this person, in this instance? Mr. Austin will be the first African American nominated….

“Mr. Austin will be the first African American nominated to be Secretary of Defense, which is enormously important in and of itself.

“The military has a problem with diversity. They have an insufficient number of people of color who have been advanced to high positions, to general and general flag officers. It is enormously important that they address that.

“In addition, in this country, we have an enormous problem right now with White supremacy. We also have a problem within our military ranks.

“Now, let me be perfectly clear: I have 100 percent confidence in our military. But this is an issue that they do need to address, the rise of White supremacy and White nationalism within their ranks. Having a highly qualified African American be Secretary of Defense will be an enormous step toward addressing that problem.”

Americans shouldn’t care if the entire Congress were black.  Their correct concern is not the color of one’s skin (the current political focus on race is a Leftist campaign with an agenda that has nothing to do with eliminating racism).  The proper concern is what leaders support, e.g. the Constitution.

Here’s another example of the radical focus on “political correctness” to support a far different agenda that ignores the proper purpose of our military — to win our nation’s wars:

Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Maryland):  “Mr. Speaker, Lloyd Austin, as we have heard, would be our country’s first African-American Secretary of Defense. His confirmation is more than a symbolic milestone towards genuine integration of the Department of Defense; it is a substantive answer to many of the challenges that the military faces.

“What are those challenges, Mr. Speaker? White supremacy and extremism. There is a dramatic rise in White supremacists and racist hate groups within our military. They actively recruit from our uniformed ranks….

“What are those challenges, Mr. Speaker? The lack of diversity inclusion at our highest ranks and in our coveted career fields….

“These are real challenges that erode the effectiveness of our military. That is why we need a leader like Lloyd Austin.” [Emphasis added.]

What is ignored here is the real challenge to the effectiveness of our military:  The CFR’s domination of our government.  U.S. globalists created Communist China as an adversary to justify empowering globalist institutions to manage conflict and making the U.S. subservient to those institutions.  Lloyd Austin as a CFR member is certainly going to support that scheme.

Another of those who rose to support Lloyd Austin was Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas):

“The next Secretary of Defense will have to make sure that our armed forces reflect and promote the full diversity of our nation.

“General Austin is uniquely qualified to lead and oversee this effort to ensure that every member of the armed forces is treated with dignity and respect, including Black, Latino, Asian American, Native American, women, and LGBTQ+ service members.”

A few days later (January 25), President Biden himself issued an executive order that placed civil standards above military effectiveness and unit cohesion by revoking a Trump administration order.  The Trump order had largely excluded trans people from joining the military and had placed restrictions on those already serving.

In 1987, Brigadier General Andrew J. Gatsis wrote:  “The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to fight and win when diplomacy fails – nothing else.” Battle effectiveness must be the overriding consideration in military organization.

Bill Summary (Congressional Research Service):
Shown Here: Introduced in House (03/01/2021)
Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021
This bill revises background check requirements applicable to proposed firearm transfers from a federal firearms licensee (e.g., a licensed gun dealer) to an unlicensed person.

Specifically, it increases the amount of time, from 3 business days to a minimum of 10 business days, that a federal firearms licensee must wait to receive a completed background check prior to transferring a firearm to an unlicensed person. (This type of transaction is often referred to as a default proceed transaction.)

If a submitted background check remains incomplete after 10 business days, then the prospective purchaser may submit a petition for a final firearms eligibility determination. If an additional 10 days elapse without a final determination, then the federal firearms licensee may transfer the firearm to the prospective purchaser. [Emphasis added.]

FFS Analysis:  On March 11, 2021, the House passed a pair of background check measures for firearm sales and transfers:  The first one, H.R. 8, Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021, and immediately thereafter this one, H.R. 1446, Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021.  H.R. 8 regulated transfers between private parties, whereas H.R. 1446 lengthened the waiting period to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer.

Target Criminals, Not Guns
During the March 10th debate on H.R. 1446, Rep. Pete Stauber (R-Minnesota) exposed the fallacy in the propose legislation from personal experience:

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today a retired law enforcement officer and the victim of two violent gun crimes.

While off duty, a repeat offender shot me through my car window while

I was with my wife, Jodi. While on duty, another violent criminal pointed his gun at me and pulled the trigger. By the grace of God, his gun malfunctioned. Mr. Speaker, I was fighting for my life. I am lucky to be here today to speak to this body.

Criminals who are willing to take someone’s life don’t care about the gun legislation we debate in Congress. And the bills we are debating this week would not have prevented those two criminals from attempting to take my life.

So let’s talk about who is going to be impacted by these bills. The law-abiding citizens who are looking to protect themselves, their families, and their communities from death or great bodily harm. They will be the ones who are penalized for and prevented from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Defending my constituents’ constitutional rights will be something I do until my very last day in office, and I implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a “no” vote.

Behind the Gun Control Lobby
Unfortunately, merely showing that gun control propaganda is wrong minimizes the danger by obscuring the powerful drivers behind the movement and what they really hope to achieve by civilian disarmament.

Undoubtedly, some of the politicians advocating greater gun control are mere opportunists seeking favor from a propagandized constituency by using superficially appealing arguments.  But not all.  And it is the influential drivers and their agenda that must be exposed if Americans are going to be alarmed enough to save the Second Amendment.

That influential driving force leads to Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) one-worlders.  In 1958, Wall Street lawyer Grenville Clark, vice president of the globalist United World Federalists, and Professor Louis B. Sohn (CFR) published World Peace Through World Law.  In that text, esteemed by “world order” advocates, Clark and Sohn called for strict controls on the possession of arms and ammunition by private citizens and even local police.

The plan introduced by Clark and Sohn in 1958 would be taken up by CFR members of the Kennedy administration, including President Kennedy himself and his Secretaries of State (Dean Rusk) and Defense (Robert S. McNamara). President Kennedy signed the law creating the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.  He also introduced “Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World” at the UN, an incredibly subversive plan that continued to guide future administrations.  But the real authors of the two initiatives were John J. McCloy, chairman of the CFR and Arthur H. Dean, a CFR director.

GOP Opponents Speak
We conclude here by listing many of the arguments by GOP opponents during the March 10th “debate” over H.R. 1446.

Note: The arguments are significant in showing why these measures are damaging, yet most fall short of explaining the real danger from civilian disarmament and its drivers.  And, of course, these compelling arguments didn’t change any of the votes of the proponents.

Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-North Carolina):  Mr. Speaker, if we lose the Second Amendment, then the First will fall. I want to remind my colleagues of a simple fact that is far too often swept under the rug by the left. Americans have a right to obtain a firearm for lawful purposes.

I will say it again louder for those on the left, sleeping in the back. Americans have a right to obtain firearms. This is my right. And, Mr. Speaker, this is your right. But let me be clear to everyone in this Chamber: You will not take this right away from us.

I know it is easy to be sucked into the D.C. bubble, but outside of here, in real America, when we say, “Come and take it,” we damn well mean it.

This bill would unconstitutionally place the burden of proof for firearms purchases and transfers on American citizens instead of placing the burden firmly where it belongs, on the shoulders of the government.

But let us be clear. The left is not here today to debate this bill, nor are they here to legislate in the best interests of the American people. They are here to shove it down our throats. My colleagues and I on the right have been called here to defend one of our most sacred rights because you, Mr. Speaker, think that the Constitution is just another piece of paper to tear down the middle of and toss aside.

I speak for millions of Americans. I specifically speak for 700,000-plus Americans in my district when I say that if you think this bastardization of the Constitution will be met with silence, then you know nothing of the America I know. You want my guns; I know it. We all know it. Well, Mr. Speaker, you can come and take them.

Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Florida): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1446 and H.R. 8, a/k/a the gun-grabber bills.

Madam Speaker Pelosi, you were elected in 1987, and I was born in 1988.  During that time, you say that background checks have saved millions of lives. But what about the more than 50 million babies that have been murdered through abortion? So I am just going to leave that there as we talk about the value of life.

These bills are not about gun safety, and they certainly aren’t about reducing crime. These bills are about control.

Two weeks ago, Democrats voted to strip religious freedom. Last week, they voted to defund our police. Today, they are now taking our guns.

In reality, these bills do nothing to improve background checks, as noted by an Obama official in 2013: “The effectiveness of universal background checks depends on requiring gun registration.”

Instead, it would increase our wait times and allow for endless delays for law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms.

Our communities have seen too many tragedies perpetuated by sick people intent on committing violence, no matter the weapon.

H.R. 1446 puts the onus on individuals to contact the government if their background check hasn’t been completed in 10 days.

You know who cannot afford to wait? The single mom looking to protect herself and her children from a violent ex who has just been released from jail. You think this situation isn’t real? It happened last month in Orlando. And there are thousands more like them.

You know that the more garbage that we find in these bills, the more I believe that the motto of these Chambers is changing from “We the People” to let’s screw the people.

H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446 does nothing but make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families. Under this legislation, criminals will do what they do best: Break the law and perpetuate crime.

So I ask my colleagues considering supporting these bills: Do you honestly think that punishing law-abiding constituents in your districts, stripping them of their constitutional rights will make them safer? Will you be able to look them in the eye as they are the next victim of crime?

As Members of Congress we swore an oath to defend the Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment.

Shall not be infringed.

You and I both took that oath, Mr. Speaker.

Rep. Richard Hudson (R-North Carolina):  Mr. Speaker, Newtown, Parkland, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Charleston, the attack on our former colleague, Gabrielle Giffords, these are all tragedies that would not have been prevented by H.R. 8 or H.R. 1446.

My colleagues across the aisle don’t want to admit it, but every commercial gun sale in America already requires a background check.

In Charleston, there was no loophole. The problem was information sharing. If the FBI had checked all available databases, then Dylan Roof wouldn’t have been allowed to purchase a firearm. Congressman Tom Rice of South Carolina has a bill to fix that.

Republicans are serious about ending gun violence and have brought forward policies that protect public safety without eroding our Second Amendment rights.

That is why in recent years we have passed measures like the STOP School Violence Act, the Fix NICS Act, and 21st Century Cures Act.

The bills before us this week would not build upon this progress but strips away from law-abiding citizens their rights.  H.R. 8 would turn law-abiding citizens into criminals if you store a gun for a friend or loan a firearm to a neighbor with an abusive ex who wanted to borrow it for self-protection.

Even worse, H.R. 1446 would extend the waiting period for a firearms sale from 3 to 10 business days and allow the government to delay a transfer indefinitely. Indefinitely, as in forever, if a government bureaucrat says so.

Instead of these gun-grabbing bills, House Republicans are bringing forward targeted solutions. That is why I introduced the STOP II:  Classrooms Over Conference Rooms Act to double funding for the STOP School Violence Act to harden schools, to get more mental health resources in schools, and increase active-shooter training for law enforcement. And we pay for it by taking money set aside for the Department of Education to rent conference rooms in Washington, D.C.

However, the left is determined to take away your rights, after voting to defund the police just last week.

It is no wonder gun sales and concealed carry permits are at all-time highs. These law-abiding Americans deserve to have their rights protected.

That is why today, I am calling on my colleagues across the aisle to stand up for law-abiding citizens and adopt H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.

H.R. 38 is a bipartisan and commonsense bill that ensures people like Shaneen Allen, a single mother from south Philly, don’t become criminals for carrying a legally owned firearm across an invisible State line.

We need H.R. 38 more than ever. And if my colleagues are determined to pass gun legislation, then let’s help people protect themselves.

Mr. Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit today, we will instruct the Judiciary Committee to consider my amendment to H.R. 1446 to include my bill, H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Alabama):  Mr. Speaker, a bill trampling on the Second Amendment rights of the American people is a convenient distraction from the actual crisis in the United States. There are over almost 11,000 people killed by drunk drivers each year. There were more than 81,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending last May. But we are here today debating a bill to further restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I just heard it mentioned about domestic violence. You could have a woman, threatened by an ex-boyfriend or a husband, who feels her life is being threatened, who would not be able to acquire a firearm once she needed it. She would have to wait at least 10 days.

The vast majority of illicit drugs, like heroin and fentanyl, leading to these 81,000 deaths are crossing our southern border. Instead of addressing these issues, President Biden has reinstituted catch and release, and now, we have an overwhelming surge of illegal crossings on our southern border.

According to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, in 2018 alone, there were 1,641 illegal aliens convicted of homicide. How many more will it be now that the Democrats have signaled that our borders are wide open?

This bill reflects an obsession with gun restrictions by my Democrat colleagues. Meanwhile, in 2018, more than one in six homicides were committed without a firearm of any type: 1,500 were killed with knives or cutting instruments, more than 400 with blunt instruments, and more than 600 with hands and feet. Only 403 died as a result of a rifle of any kind.

Mr. Speaker, these numbers are dwarfed by the loss of life from the failure of the Democrats to enforce their laws.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio):  Mr. Speaker, the FBI tells us, in a 4-year time period, 18,000 people who exercised their Second Amendment liberties to get a firearm who were denied got that reversed. Those are just the ones who went there and said, “You know what, you guys screwed up. It is not really me.”

They had to work it out.

Mr. Speaker, 18,000 times, the system screwed up. In 2017, over 112,000 people were denied, but only 12 people were prosecuted, which means that, most likely, thousands of law-abiding people were falsely denied their right to exercise their Second Amendment liberty.

Now what do Democrats want to do? They want to say: Wait a minute.

That all happened in a 3-day time period. We are going to extend that for 10 days because we know the government bureaucracy will get so much better in 10 days. We know it will work out if we just give them more time to screw up more things.

That is what is going to happen. Oh, by the way, that single lady who needs to protect herself, she is going to have to wait longer now for a system that had this many screwups to get the firearms she needs to exercise her Second Amendment liberties to protect herself and her family. That is what this legislation does.

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska):  Mr. Speaker, I watched this debate. I have to say, we have an old saying: “How do you eat an elephant? A bite at a time.” We have had two bites today.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about what everybody is talking about. It is about the Second Amendment and — I won’t call you Democrats. A lot of you are. Some of you are socialists that believe in taking the right to protect away — the Second Amendment — from the law-abiding citizens.

This is just a little step forward, the 10-day waiting period instead of the 3-day waiting period.

The FBI is controlled by the President. He, in fact, can say take 6 months or 6 years for a legal purchase of a weapon. That is what you are really saying.

Taking away the right to protect your home and your liberty, not just from criminals but those who would take away your rights as a government, the Second Amendment is what it is all about, to protect from the tyranny that could occur by the wrong leaders taking rights and freedoms away from you.

That is why I, as a board member, support this idea of the Second Amendment and ask for a “no” vote on both of these bills.

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-Louisiana):  Mr. Speaker, there is a higher authority than the law of man. Above the Speaker’s podium are the words, in this great Chamber, “In God we trust.”

Do we? Do we recognize that the Biblical record is replete with the violence of man?

Shall my colleagues on the other side of the aisle admit that law designed to restrict Second Amendment rights and freedoms are but a veil to conceal the violence of man born since Adam? The firstborn son of Adam killed his brother in a violent rage. I am rather certain he did not use a firearm.

The Second Amendment protections that we have as American citizens shall not be infringed. Remember these words and that they are born of a nation that recognized our service to our Lord.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wisconsin):  Mr. Speaker, I would like to, one more time, address what is going on here and the perceived problem.

Here in the United States, the number of murders from the beginning of the 1990s until Ferguson had fallen repeatedly, and the murder rate was half of what it once was with a tough law enforcement stance.

At that time, in the Ferguson shooting, when Officer Wilson, who was eventually found entirely innocent by the Obama Justice Department, when that person died, we whipped people into an antipolice frenzy.

Because of the antipolice frenzy, we had the murder rate in this country go up by 20 percent.

It then began to drop again until last year when we had the horrible events in Minneapolis. One more time, we whipped people up into a frenzy, and the number of murders in 1 year in Minneapolis went up 70 percent; in New York, 40 percent; in Chicago, 55 percent; and in Milwaukee, 95 percent, with the same gun control laws in cities that are run by mayors who are as antigun as you will find.

The problem here is we whipped the people into an antipolice frenzy.

The police became passive, and a lot of people died. The people who were whipped into the antipolice frenzy ought to stop and consider the huge increase in murders.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Georgia):  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1446, and in defense of the constitutional right to bear arms.

This right does not come with caveats, asterisks, or exceptions. It exists to make sure that the freedom to keep and bear arms is not unjustly infringed upon by the government.

It is the government that has the legal burden of explaining why it is restricting the natural rights of the citizen. H.R. 1446 would reverse that burden and require the law-abiding American to petition for the right to bear arms if they don’t hear back from government after 10 business days, 7 more than the current law provides.

In response to this unconstitutional action, I will introduce a bill to allow a Federal firearms licensee to transfer a purchased firearm to a legitimate buyer within 3 calendar days of contacting the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, as opposed to the current law, which requires 3 State government business days.

As a Federal firearms licensee myself, I saw firsthand during the pandemic how the closure of State government offices across the country easily infringed upon our right keep and bear arms. With these offices closed, or purported closed, 3 business days can turn into weeks and even months before a firearm transfer is allowed to be completed by government.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote “no” on H.R. 1446.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.):  Mr. Speaker, what is the so-called Charleston Loophole?

It is a provision that gives the FBI 3 days to provide a background check for a citizen to buy a gun. Now, 3 days for a background check doesn’t seem unreasonable since a credit card check takes about 3 seconds.

Now, if the FBI fails to give a clear “yes” or “no” in 3 days, the sale can proceed. That protects our Second Amendment right from arbitrary denial by inaction, and the clearance is good for 30 days from when you begin that transaction.

Now, this bill repeals the 3-day limit and replaces it with a multistage bureaucratic review process that can span up to 20 business days.

It is really quite clever. Your clearance is good for 30 calendar days from the day you begin the transaction, but the clearance can be delayed for up to 20 business days. So if you applied on January 15 of this year, 20 business days takes you to February 16. By then, your purchase window will have expired 2 days earlier, on February 14. You have to start the process over, applying for a new background check in a perpetual cycle. They never have to say “approved.”

Would a government abuse its citizens like that?

I don’t know. Maybe we should ask Lois Lerner or Andrew McCabe.

Rep. Ben Cline (R-Virginia):  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1446 and the last bill we spoke about, H.R. 8.

These bills continue the systematic and coordinated attempt by the Democratic Party to undermine our Second Amendment rights.

I was sent to Washington by my constituents to uphold and defend the Constitution. I will not stand by and allow our rights to be stripped away. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that these bills will save lives. However, nothing in them would have stopped any of the recent mass casualty shootings that have occurred in our country.

Rather than go after criminals who break the law, Democrats want to create a false narrative that will criminalize private gun ownership.

Democrats will tell you that these bills close loopholes, but the loophole they believe exists is that law-abiding Americans are even able to own guns in the first place.

The sole objective of this gun control package is to remove constitutional safeguards and put in place criminal penalties that would unjustly go after responsible gun owners.

The Second Amendment is crystal clear, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to protect us from a tyrannical government, and wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that the rights of Americans to protect themselves was secured.

These outrageous proposals put government between the American people and their constitutional freedoms to protect themselves, protect their families, and protect their communities, and I vote “no.” 

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Michigan):  Mr. Speaker, there is no gun violence problem from legal gun owners. And this bill, as well as the prior bill, will do nothing to stop gun violence because it unnecessarily regulates law-abiding citizens. And we don’t have to define that term, I would think, because they are not criminals.

The problem is with criminals. And because criminals could care less about the bills we are talking about today, innocent people will die.

I can think of neighbors of mine out in the country where I live, who have an ex who would want to cause violence to them. That lady could come to me and say: I can’t get a gun because I have got to wait 10 days, but he could come this weekend. Would you loan me a gun?

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing today wouldn’t allow that. This lady is put at severe risk.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider what they are doing. This will not work. Vote against H.R. 1446 and support the Second Amendment made by people sometimes wiser than us.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio):  Earlier, we had a couple of the folks who spoke on our side. Earlier they said the Second Amendment is right next to the First because it is pretty darn important. I think some of our folks said that.

But it struck me that, you know what, I don’t know that the other side actually cares all that much about the First Amendment.

Think about what has happened this past year. Democrats have told Americans they can’t go to church, can’t go to work, can’t go to school, can’t go to a loved one’s funeral.

Of course, the rules never apply to them. We had a Governor of one of our largest States — a Governor of our largest State — out at a 5-star restaurant, having dinner with friends and lobbyists at the same time he is telling folks in his State that they can’t even have Thanksgiving dinner with their family.

We see the attack on free speech. I mean, just to laugh at this whole cancel culture phenomena. First it was Kermit the Frog and the Muppets, then it was Dr. Seuss. I think yesterday it was cartoon characters from the Looney Tunes. Tack on your right to speak, specifically to speak in any type of political nature.

We have had Democrat Members of Congress, Mr. Speaker, send a letter to carriers, asking those carriers not to have certain news networks on their system. That is frightening. You talk about chilling speech. That is as scary as it gets — just because they don’t like what is being said on certain news networks? Scary.

And now they are coming after your Second Amendment liberties as well. I mean, think about your First Amendment rights, your right to practice your faith, your right to assemble, your right to petitionyour government, freedom of the press, freedom of speech. And then the very next right the Founders mention, your Second Amendment liberties, they are coming after that, too.

It wasn’t enough to go after your right to practice your faith. It wasn’t enough to go after your right to assemble and be with people you wanted. Think about some of the things we saw this year. We had Democrat leaders in States telling Americans you had to be in your home at a certain time with curfews. You had to be in your home by 10.

We had another State say, when you are in your home, you have to wear a mask. And then we had States say, well, when you are in your home, you don’t have to wear a mask because you are not allowed to have anybody over.

Government was limiting your First Amendment right to practice your religion, your First Amendment right to assemble. And now they are coming after your First Amendment right to speak and speak in a political nature. And here we are today, coming after your Second Amendment liberties.

The Democratic Party is the party that says defund the police, open the border, attack people’s Second Amendment rights to defend themselves while they are defunding the police and opening the border, and all the while they are undermining American’s First Amendment liberties as well.

This should frighten everyone.

This should frighten everyone. This should frighten everyone wherever they want to go. It is scary. I certainly hope we defeat both of these bills today when they are offered.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Alabama):  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Amendment and to the underlying legislation which is another attack on our 2nd amendment rights. This bill trampling on the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people is a convenient distraction from the other actual crises in the United States.

There were almost 11,000 people killed by drunk drivers in 2018.

There were more than 81,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending last May . . . but we are here today debating a bill to further restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens.

This bill endangers women threatened by domestic violence from an ex-boyfriend or ex-husband. A woman who feels her life is threatened would not be able to acquire a firearm when she needed one, under this bill she would have to wait at least 10 days.

The vast majority of the most deadly illicit drugs like heroin and fentanyl are smuggled across our southern border. Instead of addressing these issues President Biden has reinstituted catch and release and we now have an overwhelming surge of illegals crossing our southern border. According to a report from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, in 2018 there were 1,641 illegal aliens convicted of homicide. How many more will it be now that the Democrats have signaled that our borders are wide open?

Yet we are here debating a bill to take away the rights of law-abiding men and women to acquire firearms to protect themselves.

This bill reflects an obsession with gun restrictions by my Democrat colleagues. In terms of homicides, more than 1 in 6 do not involve a firearm of any type. According to the FBI, in 2017 over 1,500 people were killed with knives or cutting instruments, more than 400 were killed with blunt instruments and more than 600 killed with hands, fists and feet. There were only 403 homicides committed with a rifle of any type, including a semi-automatic AR-15 that is the target of many Democrat anti-gun activists.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and the underlying bill.

Bill Summary (by Congressional Research Service):  
Shown Here:  Passed House (02/25/2021)
Equality Act 
This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation.The bill expands the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide (1) exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; (2) goods, services, or programs; and (3) transportation services.The bill allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity.The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.

Analysis (FFS):  Here are six reasons why the misnamed Equality Act should have been defeated in the House and why, if it comes before the Senate, senators should vote no:

1. H.R. 5 is an unconstitutional federal intervention in matters that belong to the states. Despite previous so-called “civil rights” legislation, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to prohibit the types of discrimination listed in H.R. 5.
2. The Equality Act violates religious freedom by forcing organizations to act in violation of their consciences on matters such as marriage and adoption.
3. The Equality Act allows for taxpayer funding of abortions. The vast majority of Americans oppose such funding.
4. The Equality Act would pressure most schools to implement gender-identity policies that violate privacy rights such as bathrooms exclusive to women.
5. The Equality Act jeopardizes women’s school sports by forcing them to compete against biological males.
6. The Equality Act is part of a revolutionary organized attack on the religious foundations for a free society.

Rep. Chip Roy (Texas) was one of several Republicans to express his outrage over this Democratic assault.  Here is part of Rep. Roy’s remarks on the floor: 

“It is an absolute abomination and flies in the face of the very principles upon which this Nation was founded. We know that. We see that. We can go through the list. We are all going through it.

“The definition of sex in H.R. 5 inserts the right to abortion into the Civil Rights Act. The Equality Act can be used to force a universal right to abortion until birth. It forces medical professionals to conduct or assist in performing abortions; forces medical professionals to perform certain surgeries and administer hormone blockers, even if it is against their medical advice; forces employers to cover sex reassignment surgeries; forces schools, churches, hospitals, and businesses to recognize a chosen gender.

“I could go down the list. But this is about power and control. It is the same thing about having a fence with razor wire around the people’s Congress, around this Capitol building. It is an absolute affront to who we are.

“In the Declaration of Independence, where we are talking about rights, government is instituted among men to secure those rights.

“And the House of Representatives, supposedly the people’s House, is using the power of this body to step on the rights of the American people. And it is our obligation to defend those rights. And I can tell you this: We are going to stand up in defense of the Constitution, our liberties and the Bill of Rights, and the consent of the governed matters.

“You do not have the consent of the governed, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. You don’t. And you are pretending that you have got power that you do not have, and it will not end well if you pull this republic apart, thread by thread, and you have to look in the mirror and tell your kids and grandkids that this republic died on your watch.

“It is not going to because we are going to stand on the wall, the same wall that our Founders stood on, the same wall that those men at the Alamo stood on, and we are going to defend this Constitution in the name of the Declaration of Independence and the Lord that gives us the rights that we protect.”

The best defense of the Constitution, however, is to organize the grassroots to build an informed electorate that will throw the power-grabbing revolutionaries out.

Bill Summary (Congressional Research Service):
Shown Here:  Introduced in House (03/01/2021)
Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021
This bill establishes new background check requirements for firearm transfers between private parties (i.e., unlicensed individuals).

Specifically, it prohibits a firearm transfer between private parties unless a licensed gun dealer, manufacturer, or importer first takes possession of the firearm to conduct a background check.

The prohibition does not apply to certain firearm transfers, such as a gift between spouses in good faith. [Emphasis added.]

Analysis:  On March 11, 2021, the House passed a pair of background check measures for firearm sales and transfers:  This one, H.R. 8, Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021, and immediately thereafter  H.R. 1446, Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021.  H.R. 8 dealt with transfers between private parties, whereas H.R. 1446 lengthened the waiting period to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer.

H.R. 8 employed the misleading “bipartisan” in its title because three House Republicans had come on board as original cosponsors.  But only 8 GOP reps voted in favor of H.R. 8, whereas 202 voted against.

Target Criminals, Not Guns
After his daughter 18-year old Meadow was murdered in the 2018 Parkland school shooting, Andrew Pollack studied the gun control arguments and became a strong opponent of any inroads against the 2nd Amendment.

In his foreword to John R. Lott’s 2020 Gun Control Myths, Pollack pointed to one lesson he learned from Lott:  “After every shooting, maybe the number one thing you hear from gun control groups is that we need to close the ‘gun show loophole’ and ‘regulate private sales.’ It’s the kind of proposal that sounds like it makes a lot of sense.  But did you know that not one single mass shooting in the 20th century was perpetrated with a gun acquired through that so-called loophole?”

Behind the Gun Control Lobby
Unfortunately, merely showing that gun control propaganda is wrong minimizes the danger by obscuring the powerful drivers behind the movement and what they really hope to achieve by civilian disarmament.

Undoubtedly, some of the politicians advocating greater gun control are mere opportunists seeking favor from a propagandized constituency by using superficially appealing arguments.  But not all.  And it is the influential drivers and their agenda that must be exposed if Americans are going to be alarmed enough to save the Second Amendment.

That influential driving force leads to Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) one-worlders.  In 1958, Wall Street lawyer Grenville Clark, vice president of the globalist United World Federalists, and Professor Louis B. Sohn (CFR) published World Peace Through World Law.  In that text, esteemed by “world order” advocates, Clark and Sohn called for strict controls on the possession of arms and ammunition by private citizens and even local police.

The plan introduced by Clark and Sohn in 1958 would be taken up by CFR members of the Kennedy administration, including President Kennedy himself, and his Secretaries of State (Dean Rusk) and Defense (Robert S. McNamara). President Kennedy signed the law creating the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.  He also introduced “Freedom From War: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World” at the UN, an incredibly subversive plan that continued to guide future administrations.  But the real authors of the two initiatives were John J. McCloy, chairman of the CFR and Arthur H. Dean, a CFR director.

GOP Opponents Speak
We highlight here a couple of arguments by GOP opponents from the Congressional Record:

Rep. Jody Hice (R-Georgia):  Look, bottom line is, we all know that by definition criminals don’t abide by the law. And that applies also when they are purchasing firearms. Nothing in this bill prohibits this type of individual from obtaining firearms.

In fact, the majority of individuals in prison for committing crimes with firearms obtain their firearms through theft, the underground market, family members, and the like.

But what this bill does is threaten everyday American citizens with up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine for exercising their Second Amendment right in doing common practices.

To say that this does not create a national gun registry, you cannot accomplish what is in this bill without a gun registry.

The reality is universal background checks do not stop mass shootings. We do not have mass shootings because of lack of background checks. This bill will not make our communities safer. In fact, what it will do is cause law-abiding citizens to lose more of their Second Amendment rights.

We shouldn’t be focused here in Congress in taking those rights away. We actually should be strengthening the enforcement of laws we already have to make our communities safer.

I stand with the Constitution and urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 8.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas): Mr. Speaker, we have been told that 90 percent of Americans support this bill. Well, that is because 99.99 percent of Americans have not read this bill.

And we are told, yet again, that this will save lives. And, yet, there is not one single mass killing that has been brought up here today that would have been prevented by this bill.

And yet over and over we have people come in here, usually they mean well; look, this will protect people when the fact is that they can’t point to any of these mass killings they talk about that would have been prevented.

So let’s talk about lives that would be saved. Think about the people that are shot every day and would their situation be different if they were not finding it so difficult to legally get a gun?

I mean, we had thousands of felony cases that came through my court, and we tried a lot of those cases. Over and over you hear, the criminals are not obeying the law. They are not going to follow the law. They got their guns illegally. And this will not change at all any of those people we tried and convicted for getting guns. They steal them. They buy them from other people that stole them. They don’t obey the law. That is why they are criminals. So quit penalizing the American people.

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.): Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8 is brought to us by the same organizations and politicians who have made no secret of their intention ultimately to strip law-abiding citizens of their right to defend themselves. Now, they know they can’t do it outright, so they do it through cynical measures like this, which weave a web of laws so intricate that, sooner or later, everyone can be caught up in them.

This law affects not only sales but any transfer of a weapon for any period of time. A couple of years ago, a 10-year study by Johns Hopkins and UC Davis concluded that California’s background check law had no effect on gun homicides or suicides. None.

The purpose of this bill is not public safety. That is its deceptive facade. Its purpose is to make gun ownership so legally hazardous, so fraught with legal boobytraps and draconian penalties, that no honest and law-abiding citizen would ever want to take the risk.

Most criminals already get their guns illegally. They are unconstrained by laws like this. This bill is aimed squarely at law-abiding citizens, moving us closer to a society where decent people are defenseless and armed criminals are kings.

• • •

Below, we provide most of the GOP opposition to H.R. 8, not cited above.  The GOP remarks are instructive, but fall short of the essential explanation of what is really behind the drive to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

From the Congressional Record (3-10-21):

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), the co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus:  Mr. Speaker, Democrats today want to introduce gun control legislation that they say is going to make you safer. They want to expand background checks.

But what do background checks accomplish?  Well, the DOJ said there were 112,000 denials in a year.  Who were those 112,000 people?

Well, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have you think those were felons, they saved you from those felons.  But how many of those 112,000 were prosecuted for that crime of trying to acquire that gun?  According to the DOJ, 12–1-2–12 in a year.  Who were the other 100,000?

Imagine, just imagine now that you are the victim of an abusive relationship and after 5 years you have summoned the courage and the resources to separate from that relationship, but things have escalated and now you have decided that it is time to acquire the means to protect you and your children. So you go to the gun store and you try to buy a gun. The clerk presses the computer button, and it says “denied.”

You ask the clerk, “Why was it denied?”  The clerk says, “I don’t know. This happens sometimes. Maybe you had a similar name to somebody else in the database.”

You can’t buy a gun today, tomorrow, next week. Not ever. You havebeen denied. So you go to a friend you have known for a long time. Your friend says, “I would like to help you.”  You say, “Well, I don’t know if I am going to make it through the night.”

Your friend says, “I would like to help you, but don’t you know H.R. 8 passed and it was signed by the President. I can’t spend a year in a cage. Good luck tonight.”

Mr. Speaker, now, I am not going to ask you to imagine what happens next because the Democrats saw fit to put into this bill a requirement that you have an imminent threat of death. The threat has to be right there upon you or great bodily harm.  What do they say?

Well, if you are just expecting a few bruises and maybe a punch, put some ice on it.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues here today and I am going to challenge the sponsors of this bill and those of them who might think they would vote for this bill to consider whether it is fair.

Is it fair to surround yourself with armed guards, with Capitol Hill Police who have guns, with personal details, bodyguards, and ask the people to pay for it when you make it harder for those same people to protect themselves?

I don’t think that is fair.  And for the fact checkers who are already hard at work on this speech, I include in the Record this GAO report on the DOJ statistics on background checks.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio):  Mr. Speaker, no, it doesn’t. The previous speaker said when this bill becomes law, it will stop some of the mass shootings — all of the mass shootings that happen in this country. No, it won’t.

Nothing in this bill would prohibit, would have stopped any of those terrible things that took place.

What this bill does is stop law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment liberties, just as the gentleman from Kentucky mentioned a few minutes ago.

Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Indiana):  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8. A major reason our Founding Fathers drafted the Second Amendment is to have a check and balance for the people against the tyranny of government. It is the Second Amendment for a reason, not the Ninth or the Tenth. You must have the Second to protect the First.

The first action by history’s dictators — and we know all of them — was to take guns from law-abiding citizens. We must remember that there is no law that stops criminals from getting guns and committing crimes. We would have empty prisons otherwise.

As someone who grew up under a tyrannical government, I value these rights tremendously, and I encourage my colleagues to be vigilant and protect these rights for all law-abiding citizens.  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah):  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446.

In this last week I received over 1,000 emails from constituents in strong opposition to these antigun bills. Here is a sample:

“H.R. 8 will make it impossible to sell or loan guns to my relatives and trusted friends.”  “These bills appear designed to impose restrictions on natural rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.”  And finally, “Stand for our rights and oppose these measures with every tool in your grasp.”

I absolutely will fight these measures with every tool in my grasp. These rights protect my life, liberty, and property granted to me by God and cannot be taken away from me by D.C. bureaucrats.

I grew up in the Deep South at a time when Black Americans were unable to defend themselves. After the Civil War, Black Codes and Jim Crow laws prohibited people of color from owning firearms.

In the mid-1950s, Martin Luther King, Jr., kept firearms for self-protection, but his application for a concealed weapon permit was denied because of racist gun control laws in his State.

As a child, my dad witnessed an altercation between his father and a southern White man who thought my grandfather was being disrespectful and threatened to teach him a lesson. Later that night he drove up to my grandfather’s home with a bunch of his friends standing on the forerunner of a Model T Ford.

My grandfather was prepared. He and his brothers had hidden around his front porch. As these bullies and cowards approached the house, they heard the click of rifles and left just as fast as they came.  Without ever firing his gun on another human being, my grandfather’s right to own a firearm ensured his rights to protect his life, liberty, and property.  I urge my colleagues to vote against these anti-Second Amendment bills.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Arizona):   Mr. Speaker, the last 2 weeks, the majority has attacked the First Amendment, and now they are attacking the Second Amendment.

H.R. 8 will not save lives. As Justice Scalia noted in his decision in Heller, the Second Amendment does not give Americans a right; it protects a preexisting right, and that right shall not be infringed.

H.R. 8 would not have prevented recent shootings. In Parkland, the shooter acquired the firearm legally from an FFL after undergoing a NICS check. The same thing in Sutherland Springs, Texas; the same in Las Vegas, Nevada; and the same in Orlando. I could go on because the list would produce the same result. They got their guns after a background check, including in El Paso.

Criminals who seek to do harm get guns regardless of the new restrictions imposed by H.R. 8. And with very limited exceptions, H.R. 8 makes it illegal for Americans to get a gun if a nonlicensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer is not involved. How will the government know if an illegal transfer occurs? Without a registry, this bill is unenforceable.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard supporters of this bill say that other countries have similar restrictions so we should, too. I counter with the fact that other countries do not have the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was included to ensure that the United States would be different than other countries.  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado), co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus: Mr. Speaker, I was raised in a Democrat home, so I understand how these policies are deceiving. I understand that we are told guns are scary. That is what we were told, and that is what we believed, because we trusted the people who we voted for. But just as with most things in life, I grew up and learned that there is a better way to live. I was ignorant to firearms and the proper use of them.

Mr. Speaker, when I became a business owner, I needed to protect myself. There was an altercation outside of my restaurant, where a man was physically beat to death. There were no weapons involved. He was beaten to death by another man’s hands.

I have a lot of young girls who work in my restaurant, and we needed an equalizer. I am 5 feet tall. I weigh barely 100 pounds. I need something against a stronger potential aggressor to defend myself with.

Talk about women’s rights. Don’t take my right away to protect myself.

I mean, seriously, what are we doing here? I ask the supporters of this legislation, who do you think you are to disarm Americans and leave them vulnerable without help?

You want to defund our police and yet leave us without a way to protect ourselves.  Our Founding Fathers gave us a list of items. They said don’t touch these things. And I am telling you, keep your hands off of our Second Amendment.  

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio):  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker talked about the increase in violent crime in her neighborhood last year. Maybe if Democrats actively supported our police and not supported defund the police, maybe that wouldn’t be the case.

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Arizona):  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.

H.R. 8 is an assault on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The bill turns law-abiding citizens into criminals by subjecting them to criminal penalties for simply lending a friend or a neighbor a gun on a temporary basis.

Additionally, the bill would inevitably lead to a national gun registry because, without a registry, the government has no way to implement this legislation. This bill is certainly a slippery slope.

Most alarmingly, this bill does nothing, absolutely nothing, to stop criminals from obtaining firearms. According to the Department of Justice, less than 1 percent of criminals in prison who possessed a firearm during their offense obtained the firearm from a licensed dealer, meaning criminals would still have access to firearms under this law.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is just the first of many steps to take away our Second Amendment rights. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Rep. Ben Cline (R-Virginia). Mr. Speaker, enough is enough, which is why I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8 and to offer a motion to recommit the bill.

This bill is nothing more than a coordinated effort by the authoritarian left to strip away the constitutional rights guaranteed to Americans by the Second Amendment.

Instead of criminalizing the innocent actions of law-abiding gun owners, American citizens, we should be focused on stopping real crime in our local communities and enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

One way we can do that is by ensuring that ICE is notified when unlawful aliens attempt to purchase a firearm illegally. The FBI reported just last month that NICS had over 10 million people listed as an illegal alien. In fact, this ranks as the number one prohibited category in the FBI’s NICS Indices.

Since 1998, over 28,000 illegal aliens have been denied a firearm after failing a NICS check. With over 2,700 in 2019 alone, this means over 28,000 criminals have been allowed to stay in the United States when ICE should have been alerted about their criminal act but were not.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8 fails to do anything to prevent crime, which is why I am offering this motion to recommit, so our Nation’s laws are enforced. And if you will recall, this MTR passed in 2019 with a strong bipartisan majority.

Mr. Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on the Judiciary to consider my amendment to H.R. 8 to ensure that the FBI alerts ICE anytime an illegal alien is denied a firearm because of NICS.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Georgia): Mr. Speaker, I rise to stand against H.R. 8.

This bill would make it a crime to transfer a firearm from one individual to another without a Federal firearms licensee overseeing the transfer and conducting a background check on the prospective buyer. While there are limited exceptions to this bill, in this bill it does nothing to address how violent criminals actually obtain firearms, nor does the bill make it harder for them to obtain a firearm. That is because criminals don’t follow the law. That is why they are called criminals.

So by making these types of changes to the law, the bill does nothing to prohibit guns from ending up in the hands of criminals. Instead, it does everything possible to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a “no” vote on H.R. 8.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas):  Mr. Speaker, right now in south Texas there are American citizens whose lives are in danger because of wide open borders as a direct result of Biden’s border crisis and the policies of the Democratic leadership of this body and the Senate. American citizens are unsafe. I am not making that up.

For the last 2 years, I have heard my Democratic colleagues talking about a fake crisis at our border. There is nothing fake about 100,000 people coming across our border; or high-speed chases through Uvalde, Texas; or high-speed chases in Real County, which I represent. There is nothing fake about break-ins putting lives in danger.

People own ranches, and now my Democratic colleagues, after defunding the police and opening up our borders, want to take away our God-given right — yes, God-given right — to defend ourselves under the Second Amendment. That is what this is about. This is about creating a gun registry to track guns of the American people. There is no way to implement what the Democrats are trying to implement without doing that.

I can just tell you straight up, Texans, Americans, the Government is never going to know what weapons I own. Let me be clear about that. It is not going to happen. We have a God-given right to defend our families, defend our State, and defend ourselves against tyranny; and we will do that regardless of the errant policies that this Democratic Congress is trying to jam through. 

Rep. Gregory Murphy (R-North Carolina):  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8 as well as H.R. 1446.

There is not a single Member in this Chamber who does not mourn the innocent lives lost to gun violence, but I solemnly believe that my Democratic colleagues lack a fundamental understanding of this issue.

I have worked as a surgeon who has done pelvic trauma for close to 30 years. In fact, I will submit that I am the only Member of this Chamber who has ever operated on a gunshot victim. The infinite majority of gunshot victims are shot by criminals who have obtained their guns illegally. They did not apply for permits. They are not a member of the NRA. They are criminals. These bills would do nothing to keep the guns out of their hands.

In all my years as a surgeon, I have yet to see a gun jump up by itself and injure someone. It is either from a crime, a mental illness, or tragically from an accident. Where I live in eastern North Carolina, it is certainly different from New York City, the gun haven of Chicago, or Oakland, but we still have our share of drug-related and gang-related crime.

On the other hand, we have a lot of wilderness that people back home, adults and children, still enjoy hunting. These law-abiding citizens should not have their rights trampled upon. We are all saddened by the loss of life from mass shootings, but, Mr. Speaker, the issue is not the gun itself, but the mental illness borne by the gun holder. A mentally stable person does not shoot innocent people.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446 absurdly hamper people’s ability to exercise their constitutional right to defend themselves. This sort of broad government overreach does not save lives, but treats everyday law-abiding citizens like criminals.  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote “no” on these bills. We should not support bills that place the rights of violent criminals above those law-abiding American citizens.

Rep. Ted Budd (R-North Carolina): Mr. Speaker, the fundamental truth is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their loved ones.

America’s Founders spoke on this issue extensively. Benjamin Franklin warned that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin was right. The American tradition of self-reliance, self-determination, and self-defense has been fierce. It has been what makes this country so exceptional and so great.

Today, the House will vote on legislation that would undermine that very right. What is worse is that both of these bills would not have prevented mass shootings or tragedies across this Nation. Those are awful events. We all agree that those events are awful. But in those cases, the criminal either passed a background check or they stole their weapons.

We cannot sacrifice our rights by passing laws that will make our families less safe and laws that criminals will simply ignore. We must always protect and preserve our God-given Second Amendment right.  

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio):  Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that I have been a committed defender of the Second Amendment since being elected to Congress back in 1994. For me, that means that I will do everything that I possibly can to ensure that the rights of Americans, as they relate to the Second Amendment, are protected, while at the same timeworking to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and mentally unstable individuals.

H.R. 8, unfortunately, doesn’t accomplish either of those goals. It is overburdensome, unreasonable, and, if passed, would instead keep firearms out of the hands of some hardworking and law-abiding citizens.

Yesterday, at the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment which would allow for the transfer of a firearm to museums or historical displays without going through the burdensome requirements of this measure, but that eminently reasonable amendment and others offered by my colleagues were flatly rejected by the majority.

During this afternoon’s debate, we have again expressed several concerns which will not be addressed or considered by the majority. Instead of focusing on improving the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System, or NICS, providing resources to assist those with mental illnesses or hardening soft targets like schools and places of worship, the majority will pass this legislation and attempt to further infringe on the Second Amendment rights of our constituents. That is very, very unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I stand in opposition to this deeply flawed legislation.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), the co-chair of the Second Amendment Caucus: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point to make. I wonder how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle hold two thoughts in contradiction simultaneously in their minds. They say that photo IDs and excessive registration paperwork and whatnot disenfranchises disproportionately minorities and the poor when they go to exercise their right to vote. But today with H.R. 8 and the next bill that is coming up, they are doing exactly that. They are causing there to be increased fees, increased paperwork, and more photo IDs.

How does that not disenfranchise not just all Americans but disproportionately minorities and the poor?  Mr. Speaker, I leave that to my colleagues to answer today.  

Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R–Texas): Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation we are considering today.

In cities across America, violent crime has increased; and in cities across America, laws already exist to severely punish violent criminals. But despite this, we are seeing local elected officials, district attorneys, and prosecutors refuse to enforce existing laws and police who are continuously held back from doing their jobs.

Instead of offering real solutions to improve public safety, it seems the majority is determined to punish law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to actually close loopholes in the system.

If the bills we are considering were really stopping gun crimes and violent offenders from owning guns, then my amendment would be one we are discussing today, to prevent minors aged 15 to 17 who have committed violent crimes from having their records expunged and thereby able to purchase a firearm.

But rather than take up my amendment to prevent felons from sidestepping our laws, the majority felt it more critical for public safety to expand background checks to ranchers and farmers with pest control issues. This is absurd.

Nothing in H.R. 1446 or H.R. 8 would prevent those seeking to harm others from acquiring firearms. The people of my district deserve better than this, which is why I will be introducing legislation that will actually prevent violent criminals from clearing their record.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and side with law-abiding Americans and side with those of us who want to take guns out of the hands of violent criminals.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio):  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker talked about Chicago’s strictest gun laws in the country, but yet there was a record number of shootings and crime last year.  What could be the cause of that?  Maybe it is the fact they defunded their police, something we have talked about now, well, since the Democrats started doing it.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R–Wisconsin):  Mr. Speaker, one more time we see people uncomfortable with our Constitution. Our forefathers gave us the right to bear arms because they wanted law-abiding people to have the right to defend themselves.

Until Ferguson and the rise of the antipolice movement about 5 years ago, the murder rate in this country fell by over one-half between the early 1990s and around 2014.

What happened at that time?  We whipped up some antipolice hysteria, and since that time things have gone wildly up. Now the majority party introduces a cache of bills designed to make it more difficult for law-abiding people to access a weapon while not having any impact on people who wouldn’t obey the laws anyway.

They don’t like the idea of private transfers. They don’t like the idea of being able to get a gun in less than 10 days. They don’t like the idea that if the government doesn’t give the proper information over — well, apparently, they like the idea that they want to keep people from getting guns if the government, for whatever reason, is slow in turning things over.

In any event, let’s go back to the things that worked for 25 years before the rise of the antipolice movement if we really want to see improvement.

Rep. Daniel Meuser (R-Pennsylvania):  Mr. Speaker, once again, Democratic leadership is proposing legislation that would do nothing to prevent criminals from accessing firearms while greatly restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.

These bills are being sold to the public as an effort to pass universal background checks. But House Democrats fail to recognize that every commercial gun sale in the United States already has a background check.

Mr. Speaker, ending gun violence in America is a goal we all share, but H.R. 8 will subject law-abiding gun owners to criminal penalties for simply handing a firearm to another person.

For instance, if you loaned a friend a rifle to go hunting, they could face a year in prison or a $100,000 fine. This is simply ridiculous.

The same would be true, Mr. Speaker, if you loaned an abuse victim a firearm for self-defense. H.R. 1446 would create arbitrary delays for firearm purchases and could allow the FBI to delay a firearm transfer indefinitely.

These bills would do nothing to keep Americans safer and, in fact, threaten the public safety and our constitutional right to bear arms.

Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas):  Mr. Speaker, in what alternative reality does it make sense for this Congress to take away people’s rights to defend themselves and, at the same time, defund the police? That makes no sense.

What we have seen in the last few days and the last week in this Congress is an effort to punish the law-abiders in this Nation. We have to stop doing this.

If we take away guns from law-abiding citizens, we are doing nothing to reduce crime. Look at Chicago. The law-abiding citizens there do not live in a safe environment. They are able to follow these procedures that you are passing, but it is not going to do anything to stop the violence.

We have to get away from this. We have to stop these laws that do not represent the will of the American people.  Let’s stop punishing the law-abiding citizens of the United States and get back to what they sent us here to do.

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Florida):  Mr. Speaker, gun crime in the United States is a tragedy for us all. I heard the talk about Sandy Hook, about Columbine, and, yes, about Parkland, which happened in my State. It is a tragedy that we all face.

But the one thing, Mr. Speaker, we all have to remember is that, in each one of these instances, the person who acquired the firearm that committed this tragedy acquired it lawfully, or they stole the weapons from somebody else. This bill would not change any of those tragedies.

If anything, what this bill does, it puts more burden on law-abiding Americans and does whittle away and strip their constitutional right to bear arms. You see, the issue is much more about mental health than it is about the ability to acquire firearms.

For this body to unilaterally make it significantly more difficult for a law-abiding citizen to acquire a firearm, which is their constitutional, God-given right, is this body acting outside of its authority under the United States Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, in short, this bill will not fix the tragedies that we face. Unfortunately, laws don’t fix most of the tragedies that we face as Americans. What fixes them is dealing with the human condition that, unfortunately, inhabits people in our country. We should be working on that, not stripping the constitutional rights from our fellow citizens.

Rep. August Pfluger (R–Texas): Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a Texan, a constitutional conservative, and in strong opposition not only to the amendments but to H.R. 8, a bill that would impose so-called universal background checks and gut the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners throughout this country.

We all mourn the loss of innocent lives from gun violence that has happened in my district and in those around the country. No family should ever have to endure such tragic and terrible unnecessary loss.

But the truth is that this legislation does nothing to address the root causes of gun violence and may do little to actually prevent criminals from obtaining guns, as has previously been said during this debate.

What will be prevented, though? Your ability to lend your neighbor afirearm if there are reports of break-ins; the ability of your suicidal friend or family member to ask you to remove their firearms from their home; or if a colleague comes to you and says that they are trapped in an abusive relationship and scared for their life, you could face a $100,000 fine or prison time for lending out your gun for self-defense.

If we are going to effect real change, we don’t need to tack additional restrictions on law-abiding citizens. We need to look at the root causes and have a transparent and open debate here to talk about mental health and the proper enforcement of laws that we already have.

This is yet another example of Federal overreach, another example of the erosion of our rights, and a slippery slope that will strip all Americans of our Second Amendment rights as outlined in the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote “no” on the amendment and the bill.

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pennsylvania):  Mr. Speaker, just yesterday afternoon at 3 o’clock in Atlanta, an armed robber walked into Chick-fil-A to rob the place.

Now, think about that. You are in there with your children, getting a meal in the middle of the day, and somebody comes in with a gun, puts your life at risk. Everybody in the place is at risk.

Did that guy get a background check to get his firearm? We don’t know yet, but odds are he didn’t because most of these crimes that are committed with a gun are with people who don’t — guess what? I have a news flash — they don’t follow the law.

Robbing the Chick-fil-A at 3 o’clock in the afternoon in Atlanta is not in accordance with the law. But I will tell you what happened. An armed citizen stopped the robbery using his firearm, a legally obtained firearm, and saved everybody in the place.

Do you know who is happy? The people in the Chick-fil-A are happy that the guy who bought the gun legally was there to save them and their children. That is who is happy.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, disarms that person who operated his firearm legally. That is what this legislation does. It disarms America. It says to the criminal: Keep on not abiding by the law. You got your weapon illegally. You are going to keep doing it.

It doesn’t stop them from doing anything. What it does do is it stops the guy who is going to get his firearm legally and end the crime in his community. That is who it stops.

No charges are pending on that individual in Atlanta who stopped that crime. No charges are pending. He followed the law.  This bill, Mr. Speaker, seeks to punish people who want to follow the law, and that is what is going to happen.

Do you know what is going to happen when we do this? There are going to be more crimes. There are going to be more unauthorized weapons out there, and there are going to be less people out there defending themselves and our community. That is what is happening.  Mr. Speaker, I urge a “no” vote on this.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio):  Mr. Speaker, I think part of the point of the gentleman from Pennsylvania was this system is a mess. Over 110,000 people were denied access to a firearm when they went through the background check, but only 12 were prosecuted. Mr. Massie led off our debate by talking about this one. That tells you one or two things.

I think the main takeaway is, how many people were falsely denied? Or if they weren’t, why weren’t more people prosecuted?

If the focus is to make sure the bad guy doesn’t get the gun, holy cow, over 110,000 were denied access to a firearm, not given a clearance. Yet only 12 prosecuted?

If you guys want to work with us on that issue, we are happy to do that. In fact, we have supported that and talked about that, but you don’t want to do that.     

Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pennsylvania): Mr. Speaker, we lament the death of our good friend, Mr. Crist’s constituent, Mo. We lament it. We especially lament it because when you are in the military and you are on base and you are in uniform, you are prohibited from carrying a firearm. Think about that. Those in our country most well trained to use a firearm lose their lives because they cannot defend themselves, as a regulation by the DOD that says they cannot carry a firearm on base. That is why Mo is not here.

Sure, there is a Saudi terrorist in town that is killing people, but Mo could have stopped that if Mo were allowed to use his skills provided by the taxpayers and desired by him. He wanted to serve his country, he wanted to serve his community, and he should have been allowed to.

This bill is more of the same thing, disallowing American citizens to defend themselves. Unfortunately, Mo is a prime example.