National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This is a serious piece of work for me today because less than a year ago, one of our colleagues from Arizona was shot in the head while she was trying to convene with her constituents outside a supermarket. The mayhem was awful. A little 9-year-old girl named Christina-Taylor Green, a baseball fan who just came to see her Congresswoman, was killed. And by all accounts, an extraordinary Federal judge named John Roll died as well as some of Gabby's staff. Numbers of people were wounded. And yet the only person ever considered by this House would be the guy and his right to have that gun. What about the rights for the rest of us? Are we going to have to learn to dance up and down the street to try to escape the bullets? What happens to us? What about an amendment for us to ensure that we can be safe?

The statistics of people now being killed in places of worship, the rising number of people in law enforcement who face unspeakable and awful things because we won't do our job here to disarm people who are mentally ill.

I would like to insert into the Record an article from the New York Times on how easy it is for felons, including the mentally ill, to regain their gun rights.

When are we going to reinstate in this House the automatic weapons ban, and why don't we outlaw guns that are so powerful that they serve no purpose at all in a civilized society? When will we allow the Federal authorities to computerize gun sale records so it is easier to hold guilty individuals responsible for their gun crimes?

In the age of iPhones and Androids, our police are tracing gun crimes with scraps of paper and handwritten notes. Surely that is a more important job for us to do here than what we're doing--to say you can carry a concealed weapon anywhere you want to go because that's who we are. Apparently, the Republican majority wants that.

Based on today's bill, they think it is more important to pass legislation that will make it easier to carry a gun to a public gathering, easier to carry a loaded weapon into NFL stadiums, easier to carry a gun to the grocery store on Saturday noon, or into your temple or your church. What in the world? How can we ever explain that to people who have had gun deaths in their family?

The horrible shooting of our colleague wouldn't have been stopped with the passage of today's bill, and no one is made safer by allowing guns into public space. And since last January, Congress hasn't considered a single piece of legislation that would make it harder for a mentally ill individual to get a gun. We have done nothing at all to make sure that another nightmare like the one in Tucson doesn't visit our country yet again, leaving innocent children, men, and women victims to a loaded gun. And yet the only person we care about here is the gun owner.

The only legislation we are considering will make it more convenient to carry your gun even in States that don't want it. Realizing this fact really puts the morality of this agenda into perspective.

This Congress should be considering legislation that will help the American people, not legislation that fulfills an ideological agenda, which is what we've been doing all year. I urge my colleagues to vigorously oppose today's legislation.

[From the New York Times, Nov. 13, 2011]

Felons Finding It Easy to Regain Gun Rights

(By Michael Luo)

In February 2005, Erik Zettergren came home from a party

after midnight with his girlfriend and another couple. They

had all been drinking heavily, and soon the other man and Mr.

Zettergren's girlfriend passed out on his bed. When Mr.

Zettergren went to check on them later, he found his

girlfriend naked from the waist down and the other man, Jason

Robinson, with his pants around his ankles.

Enraged, Mr. Zettergren ordered Mr. Robinson to leave.

After a brief confrontation, Mr. Zettergren shot him in the

temple at point-blank range with a Glock-17 semiautomatic

handgun. He then forced Mr. Robinson's hysterical fiancee, at

gunpoint, to help him dispose of the body in a nearby river.

It was the first homicide in more than 30 years in the

small town of Endicott, in eastern Washington. But for a

judge's ruling two months before, it would probably never

have happened.

For years, Mr. Zettergren had been barred from possessing

firearms because of two felony convictions. He had a history

of mental health problems and friends said he was dangerous.

Yet Mr. Zettergren's gun rights were restored without even a

hearing, under a state law that gave the judge no leeway to

deny the application as long as certain basic requirements

had been met. Mr. Zettergren, then 36, wasted no time

retrieving several guns he had given to a friend for

safekeeping.

``If he hadn't had his rights restored, in this particular

instance, it probably would have saved the life of the other

person,'' said Denis Tracy, the prosecutor in Whitman County,

who handled the murder case.

Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit

their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons

across the country have those rights reinstated, often with

little or no review. In several states, they include people

convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder

and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has

found.

While previously a small number of felons were able to

reclaim their gun rights, the process became commonplace in

many states in the late 1980s, after Congress started

allowing state laws to dictate these reinstatements--part of

an overhaul of federal gun laws orchestrated by the National

Rifle Association. The restoration movement has gathered

force in recent years, as gun rights advocates have sought to

capitalize on the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second

Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms.

This gradual pulling back of what many Americans have

unquestioningly assumed was a blanket prohibition has drawn

relatively little public notice. Indeed, state law

enforcement agencies have scant information, if any, on which

felons are getting their gun rights back, let alone how many

have gone on to commit new crimes.

While many states continue to make it very difficult for

felons to get their gun rights back--and federal felons are

out of luck without a presidential pardon--many other

jurisdictions are far more lenient, The Times found. In some,

restoration is automatic for nonviolent felons as soon as

they complete their sentences. In others, the decision is

left up to judges, but the standards are generally vague, the

process often perfunctory. In some states, even violent

felons face a relatively low bar, with no waiting period

before they can apply.

The Times examined hundreds of restoration cases in several

states, among them Minnesota, where William James Holisky II,

who had a history of stalking and terrorizing women, got his

gun rights back last year, just six months after completing a

three-year prison sentence for firing a shotgun into the

house of a woman who had broken up with him after a handful

of dates. She and her son were inside at the time of the

shooting.

``My whole family's convinced that at some point he'll blow

a gasket and that he'll

come and shoot someone,'' said Vicky Holisky-Crets, Mr.

Holisky's sister.

Also last year, a judge in Cleveland restored gun rights to

Charles C. Hairston, who had been convicted of first-degree

murder in North Carolina in 1971 for shooting a grocery store

owner in the head with a shotgun. He also had another felony

conviction, in 1995, for corruption of a minor.

Margaret C. Love, a pardon lawyer based in Washington,

D.C., who has researched gun rights restoration laws,

estimated that, depending on the type of crime, in more than

half the states felons have a reasonable chance of getting

back their gun rights.

That universe could well expand, as pro-gun groups shed a

historical reluctance to advocate publicly for gun rights for

felons. Lawyers litigating Second Amendment issues are also

starting to challenge the more restrictive restoration laws.

Pro-gun groups have pressed the issue in the last few years

in states as diverse as Alaska, Ohio, Oregon and Tennessee.

Ohio's Legislature confronted the matter when it passed a

law this year fixing a technicality that threatened to

invalidate the state's restorations.

Ken Hanson, legislative chairman of the Buckeye Firearms

Coalition, argued that felons should be able to reclaim their

gun rights just as they can other civil rights.

``If it's a constitutional right, you treat it with equal

dignity with other rights,'' he said.

But Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition

Against Gun Violence, contended that the public was safer

without guns in the hands of people who have committed

serious crimes.

``It seems that Ohio legislators have plenty of problems to

solve that should be a much higher priority than making sure

criminals have guns,'' Ms. Hoover said in written testimony.

That question--whether the restorations pose a risk to

public safety--has received little study, in part because

data can be hard to come by.

The Times analyzed data from Washington State, where Mr.

Zettergren had his gun rights restored. The most serious

felons are barred, but otherwise judges have no discretion to

reject the petitions, as long as the applicant fulfills

certain criteria. (In 2003, a state appeals court panel

stated that a petitioner ``had no burden to show that he is

safe to own or possess guns.'')

Since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of

domestic violence misdemeanors have regained their gun rights

in the state--430 in 2010 alone--according to the analysis of

data provided by the state police and the court system. Of

that number, more than 400--about 13 percent--have

subsequently committed new crimes, the analysis found. More

than 200 committed felonies, including murder, assault in the

first and second degree, child rape and drive-by shooting.

Even some felons who have regained their firearms rights

say the process needs to be more rigorous.

``It's kind of spooky, isn't it?'' said Beau Krueger, who

has two assaults on his record and got his gun rights back

last year in Minnesota after only a brief hearing, in which

local prosecutors did not even participate. ``We could have

all kinds of crazy hoodlums out here with guns that shouldn't

have guns.''

powerful lobby prevails

The federal firearms prohibition for felons dates to the

late 1960s, when the assassinations of the Rev. Dr. Martin

Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, along with

rioting across the country, set off a clamor for stricter gun

control laws. Congress enacted sweeping legislation that

included a provision extending the firearms ban for convicted

criminals beyond those who had committed ``crimes of

violence,'' a standard adopted in the 1930s.

``All of our people who are deeply concerned about law and

order should hail this day,'' President Lyndon B. Johnson

said upon signing the Gun Control Act in October 1968.

Even the N.R.A. backed the bill. But by the late 1970s, a

more hard-line faction, committed to an expansive view of the

Second Amendment, had taken control of the group. A crowning

achievement was the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986,

which significantly loosened federal gun laws.

When it came to felons' gun rights, the legislation

essentially left the matter up to states. The federal gun

restrictions would no longer apply if a state had restored a

felon's civil rights--to vote, sit on a jury and hold public

office--and the individual faced no other firearms

prohibitions.

The restoration issue drew relatively little notice in the

Congressional battle over the bill. But officials of the

federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms identified

the provision in an internal memo as among their serious

concerns. Some state law enforcement officials also sounded

the alarm.

When Senator David F. Durenberger, a Minnesota Republican,

realized after the law passed that thousands of felons,

including those convicted of violent crimes, in his state

would suddenly be getting their gun rights back, he sought

the N.R.A.'s help in rolling back the provision. Doug Kelley,

his chief of staff at the time, thought the group would

``surely want to close this loophole.''

But the senator, Mr. Kelley recalled, ``ran into a stone

wall,'' as the N.R.A. threatened to pull its support for him

if he did not drop the matter, which he eventually did.

``The N.R.A. slammed the door on us,'' Mr. Kelley said.

``That absolutely baffled me.''

Until then, the avenues for restoration had been narrow and

few: a direct appeal to the federal firearms agency, which

conducted detailed background investigations; a state pardon

expressly authorizing gun possession, or a presidential

pardon. Felons convicted of crimes involving guns or other

weapons, as well as those convicted of violating federal gun

laws, were expressly barred from applying to the federal

firearms agency.

By contrast, the restoration of civil rights, which is now

central to regaining gun rights, is relatively routine,

automatic in many states upon completion of a sentence. In

some states, felons must also petition for a judicial order

specifically restoring firearms rights. Other potential paths

include a pardon from the governor or state clemency board or

a ``set aside''--essentially, an annulment--of the

conviction.

Today, in at least 11 states, including Kansas, Ohio,

Minnesota and Rhode Island, restoration of firearms rights is

automatic, without any review at all, for many nonviolent

felons, usually once they finish their sentences, or after a

certain amount of time crime-free. Even violent felons may

petition to have their firearms rights restored in states

like Ohio, Minnesota and Virginia. Some states, including

Georgia and Nebraska, award scores of pardons every year that

specifically confer gun privileges.

Felons face steep odds, though, in states like California,

where the governor's office gives out only a handful of

pardons every year, if that.

``It's a long, drawn-out process,'' said Steve Lindley,

chief of the State Department of Justice's firearms bureau.

``They were convicted of a felony crime. There are penalties

for that.''

Studies on the impact of gun restrictions largely support

barring felons from possessing firearms.

One study, published in the American Journal of Public

Health in 1999, found that denying handgun purchases to

felons cut their risk of committing new gun or violent crimes

by 20 to 30 percent. A year earlier, a study in the Journal

of the American Medical Association found that handgun

purchasers with at least one prior misdemeanor--not even a

felony--were more than seven times as likely as those with no

criminal history to be charged with new offenses over a 15-

year period.

Criminologists studying recidivism have found that felons

usually have to stay out of trouble for about a decade before

their risk of committing a crime equals that of people with

no records. According to Alfred Blumstein, a professor at

Carnegie Mellon University, for violent offenders, that

period is 11 to 15 years; for drug offenders, 10 to 14 years;

and for those who have committed property crimes, 8 to 11

years. An important caveat: Professor Blumstein did not look

at what happens when felons are given guns.

The history of the federal firearms agency's own

restoration program, though, offers reason for caution. The

program came under attack in the early 1990s, when the

Violence Policy Center, a gun control group, discovered that

dozens of felons granted restorations over a five-year period

had been arrested again, including some on charges of

attempted murder and sexual assault. (The center also found

that many of those granted gun rights were felons convicted

of violent or drug-related crimes.) In the resulting uproar

and over the objections of the N.R.A., Congress killed the

program.

A Superficial Process

In 2001, three police officers in the Columbia Heights

suburb of Minneapolis were shot and wounded by a convicted

murderer whose firearms rights had been restored

automatically in 1987, 10 years after he completed a six-and-

a-half year prison sentence and then probation for killing

his estranged wife and a family friend with a shotgun. (The

State Legislature had imposed the 10-year waiting period for

violent felons after it discovered what Senator Durenberger

had feared: that felons' gun rights would be restored

immediately under the Firearm Owners Protection Act.)

What happened in the wake of the shooting is emblematic of

how the issue has played out in many states, particularly

where the gun lobby is powerful.

Two Democratic legislators sought to impose a lifetime

firearms ban on violent felons, although they concluded that

for their bills to have any chance of passing, they would

also have to set up a process that held out a hope of

eventual restoration. They were unable, however, to get their

bills through the Legislature.

The issue was taken up the following year by Republican

lawmakers, but it became wrapped up in legislation to relax

concealed-weapons laws. Initially, a moderate Republican

introduced a bill with a 5- to 10-year waiting period for

regaining gun rights, but the waiting period was scrapped

entirely in the law, written by gun-rights advocates, that

was finally enacted in 2003. That law, which does not even

mandate that prosecutors be notified of the hearings,

requires judges to grant the requests merely if the

petitioners show ``good cause.''

``The decision was, we have good judges and we trust

them,'' said Joseph Olson, who helped write the statute as

president of the advocacy group Concealed Carry Reform Now.

One man who has benefited from a Minnesota judge's gun

rights ruling is William Holisky.

Mr. Holisky, an accountant who has struggled with bipolar

disorder and alcoholism,

had gone out only a few times with Karen Roman, a nurse he

had met online, before she broke up with him.

In August 2006, Ms. Roman was getting ready to work a night

shift, putting on makeup in the bathroom of her home in

Duluth, when she heard a truck pulling up and a loud boom.

Moments later, she heard another boom and glass breaking. She

hit the floor, calling out to her teenage son in the other

room to do the same as she crawled to the phone to dial 911.

The police arrested Mr. Holisky later that night for

drunken driving. Several months later, they charged him in

the shooting as well. He pleaded guilty to second-degree

assault with a dangerous weapon.

Around the same time, he also pleaded guilty to a felony

charge of making terroristic threats against an elderly

neighbor. The woman had reported to the police that someone--

she suspected Mr. Holisky--had left her a threatening and

obscene note. She had also reported a series of escalating

incidents that included harassing telephone calls, his

entering her apartment and someone's smashing her bedroom

window. Mr. Holisky also had a misdemeanor burglary

conviction from 2003, for breaking into an ex-girlfriend's

house, as well as another misdemeanor conviction for

violating an order of protection.

In Mr. Holisky's gun rights hearing in October 2010 in Two

Harbors, a small town on the north shore of Lake Superior,

Russell Conrow, the prosecutor in Lake County, argued that

Mr. Holisky had not yet proved that he could stay clean,

given that he had just gotten out of prison. Mr. Conrow also

pointed out that there were two active orders of protection

against Mr. Holisky.

``There were people still scared of him,'' Mr. Conrow said

recently.

For his part, Mr. Holisky took documents from the plea

agreement in his assault case, in which the prosecutor in

neighboring St. Louis County agreed not to oppose the

restoration of his firearms rights.

Mr. Holisky, who is 59, did not specify in his often-

rambling petition exactly why he wanted a gun. He described

his behavior in 2006 as an ``aberration.''

The county judge, Kenneth Sandvik, was set to retire in a

few months. He knew Mr. Holisky's family from growing up in

the community. Several weeks later, he ruled that Mr. Holisky

had met the basic requirements of the law.

In an interview, Judge Sandvik said he had given

considerable weight to the St. Louis County prosecutor's

agreement not to oppose the restoration of gun rights for Mr.

Holisky. But Gary Bjorklund, an assistant St. Louis County

attorney, said in an interview that he had been focused on

extracting a guilty plea that would send Mr. Holisky to

prison and had thought no judge would take a firearms request

from Mr. Holisky seriously.

Judge Sandvik acknowledged that he had not looked into the

details of Mr. Holisky's assault case, arguing that his job

had been only to review what the prosecutor had presented to

him.

``We're not investigators,'' he said.

The ease with which Mr. Holisky regained his gun rights

does not appear to be an anomaly. Using partial data from

Minnesota's Judicial Branch, The Times identified more than

70 cases since 2004 of people convicted of ``crimes of

violence'' who have gotten their gun rights back. A closer

look at a number of them found a superficial process. The

cases included those of Mr. Krueger, who criticized the

system as insufficiently rigorous after winning back his gun

rights in a perfunctory hearing, and of another man whose

petition was approved without even a hearing, even though his

felony involved pulling a gun on a man.

The ruling in Mr. Holisky's case prompted members of his

family to write a series of frantic e-mails to Judge Sandvik

and Mr. Conrow, warning of dire consequences.

It is not entirely clear whether Mr. Holisky, who did not

respond to several requests for comment, is legally able to

buy a gun at this point, because at least one of the

outstanding orders of protection, which expires next year,

appears to trip another federal prohibition. But Mr. Holisky

has been writing letters to relatives in Texas, threatening

legal action if they do not turn over his gun collection.

So far, they have refused.

A Killer's Successful Petition

Just as in Minnesota, violent felons in Ohio are allowed to

apply for restoration of firearms rights after completing

their sentences. The statute is similarly vague, requiring

only that a judge find that the petitioner has ``led a law-

abiding life since discharge or release, and appears likely

to do so.''

Only a handful of county clerks in Ohio said they could

track these cases, producing records on several dozen

restorations. They included people who had been convicted of

first-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, felonious

assault and sexual battery.

The case of Charles Hairston in Cuyahoga County stands out.

Mr. Hairston was 17 in January 1971, when he shot a man to

death in Winston-Salem, N.C. Mr. Hairston and a group of

neighborhood toughs had been preparing to rob a local grocery

store when the owner, Charles Minor, 55, closed up and headed

for his car.

``I am fixing to get him,'' Mr. Hairston told one of his

friends, according to witness statements to the police,

before he pulled the trigger on a 20-gauge shotgun.

Mr. Hairston spent 18 years in prison before being released

on parole in 1989. He moved to Cleveland and started working

in heating and cooling, a trade he had learned behind bars.

In 1995, he pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge for

allegedly grabbing and pushing his wife.

More seriously, later that year he was indicted on 60

counts of rape, felonious sexual penetration and gross sexual

imposition; prosecutors charged that he had forced sex upon

his stepdaughter, starting when she was 12. He was acquitted

of the most serious charges and convicted only of corruption

of a minor for one encounter at a motel for which prosecutors

were able to provide corroborating evidence beyond the girl's

detailed testimony.

Mr. Hairston, who denies the charges and is still fighting

the conviction, filed his first gun rights restoration

application in 2006 in Cuyahoga County but was summarily

denied.

When he filed a new petition two years later, a judge

thought he was ineligible and denied him again, though she

wrote in her decision that she did not believe Mr. Hairston

was likely to break the law again. But an appeals court ruled

that the judge had misread the statute, and sent the case

back for another hearing late last year.

The county prosecutor's office had vigorously opposed the

restoration from the beginning. But Mr. Hairston, who took in

several friends as character witnesses, told the judge he had

grown up in prison.

``Nearly 40 years ago, you know, I was a dumb kid,'' Mr.

Hairston said at his first hearing. He added, ``I am in a

situation now where if, God forbid, if someone was to come

into my home and attack me, my wife, there isn't a lot I

could say about it, there isn't a lot I could do.''

In the end, the judge, Hollie L. Gallagher, granted his

petition without comment.

Soon after the judge's ruling, Mr. Hairston obtained a

concealed weapons permit from a neighboring county and bought

a 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun.

Returning to Crime

Erik Zettergren originally lost his gun rights in 1987

because of a felony conviction for dealing marijuana. A

decade later, the police went to his house after being called

by his ex-wife and discovered a cache of guns. He was

convicted of another felony, unlawful possession of a

firearm.

He relinquished his weapons to friends but eventually got

them back, sometimes hiding them in an old car in his

backyard, according to friends. Sometime after that, though,

he became worried that the police might come after him again

and turned over the guns--two long guns and a Glock pistol--

to a friend, Tom Williams.

``I kept them under my bed,'' Mr. Williams said.

In December 2004, Mr. Zettergren successfully petitioned in

Kittitas County--a three-hour drive from his home--to have

his gun rights restored. (Like Minnesota's, Washington's law

allows petitioners to apply anywhere.) Court records show he

did not even have a hearing. Instead, his lawyer, Paul T.

Ferris, who specializes in these cases, took care of the

matter.

Right away, Mr. Zettergren retrieved his guns from Mr.

Williams and soon obtained a concealed pistol license. He

made something of a sport of showing off his Glock to

friends. ``He was so proud of that thing,'' said Larry

Persons, a friend. ``He was flashing it in front of

everybody.''

Not long after, he would use it in the killing.

Washington's gun rights restoration statute dates to a 1995

statewide initiative, the Hard Times for Armed Crimes Act,

that toughened penalties for crimes involving firearms. The

initiative was spearheaded, in part, by pro-gun activists,

including leaders of the Second Amendment Foundation, an

advocacy group, and the N.R.A.

Although it drew little notice at the time, the legislation

also included an expansion of what had been very limited

eligibility for restoration of firearms rights.

``There were a lot of people who we felt should be able to

get their gun rights restored who could not,'' said Alan M.

Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, who was

active in the effort.

Under the legislation, ``Class A'' felons--who have

committed the most serious crimes, like murder and

manslaughter--are ineligible, as are sex offenders.

Otherwise, judges are required to grant the petitions as long

as, essentially, felons have not been convicted of any new

crimes in the five years after completing their sentences.

Judges have no discretion to deny the requests based upon

character, mental health or any other factors. Mr. Gottlieb

said they explicitly wrote the statute this way.

``We were having problems with judges that weren't going to

restore rights no matter what,'' he said.

The statute's mix of strictness and leniency makes

Washington a useful testing ground.

The Times's analysis found that among the more than 400

people who committed crimes after winning back their gun

rights under the new law, more than 70 committed Class A or

B felonies. Over all, more than 80 were convicted of some

sort of assault and more than 100 of drug offenses.

There were cases like that of Mitchell W. Reed,

disqualified from possessing firearms after a 1984 felony

cocaine conviction. He also has seven misdemeanor convictions

on his record from the 1980s, including for assault. In 2003,

he successfully petitioned for

his gun rights in Snohomish County Superior Court.

His wife, Debi Reed, went with him to the hearing and said

in an interview that she had been shocked at how easily his

rights were restored. He immediately bought a 9-millimeter

semiautomatic handgun.

The following year, she said, he beat her up for the first

time. In 2008 he became more angry and violent, she said, in

one instance putting a gun in her hand during an argument,

pointing it at his head and saying he was going to frame her

for murder. During another fight that year, he struck her

with a gun, giving her a black eye, and held a loaded gun to

her head.

Mr. Reed was ultimately arrested in 2009 and charged with

harassing and threatening to kill his wife's ex-husband.

While those charges were pending, he was arrested on second-

degree assault charges after he beat up and tried to strangle

his wife. The charging documents also mentioned the 2008 gun

episode. He eventually pleaded guilty to third-degree assault

and intimidating a witness, as well as fourth-degree assault

and harassment.

Jason C. Keller, disqualified because of a 1997 burglary

conviction, had his rights restored after a brief hearing in

2006. He waited a few years before buying a Hi-Point .40-

caliber semiautomatic pistol, according to his girlfriend at

the time, Shawna Braylock. But she did not trust him with the

gun because of his temper, making him keep it at his parents'

house.

In 2010, Mr. Keller left a Fourth of July party in the late

evening, picked up his gun and drove to the house of a woman

he knew. He fired several shots as she stood out front with

her 9-year-old son; her 6-year-old daughter was sleeping

inside. Mr. Keller pleaded guilty to drive-by shooting, a

felony.

In Mr. Zettergren's case, his friends said they were

shocked that a judge had restored his gun rights, because

they knew he was receiving disability payments, in part

because of mental health problems.

``Most of the people around here that knew him, knew that

he could be dangerous,'' said Darrell Reinhardt, one of Mr.

Zettergren's friends.

Mr. Zettergren's mental health issues, in fact, have been

at the heart of his efforts to appeal his convictions for

second-degree murder, second-degree assault and unlawful

imprisonment. He had been in counseling since 2000, and

several mental health experts had found he had post-traumatic

stress disorder and major depression, saying he had a ``very

high degree of psychological disturbance'' and suffered

frequent ``flashbacks and disturbing images,'' according to a

declaration from a forensic psychologist in one of Mr.

Zettergren's appeal briefs. The post-traumatic stress,

according to the psychologist, resulted from scenes he had

witnessed years before, including his mother's death by

electrocution and the shooting death of a friend.

None of this was reviewed by the judge who heard Mr.

Zettergren's gun rights petition.

Donna Bly, the mother of Jason Robinson, Mr. Zettergren's

shooting victim, considered suing the county for negligence

over the decision but could not find a lawyer to take the

case. She also tried bringing the issue up with a state

legislator but got nowhere.

``This man did not deserve to have his gun rights back,''

she said.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, first of all, let me rise in opposition to this restrictive rule, yet another restrictive rule. A lot of good amendments were not made in order, and Members do not have the right to offer amendments as they see fit during this debate. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule for that reason.

Madam Speaker, another week and another hot button social issue is being brought to the floor by this extreme Republican leadership. A few weeks ago, this House debated an abortion bill. That's months after we considered legislation to defund Planned Parenthood. This Republican leadership has tried to overturn the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act this year, simply because their corporate constituency demands it. And now we're turning to guns.

We're about to debate legislation that makes it easier to carry concealed weapons in the United States. In fact, we're considering a bill that will make it easier for convicted felons. Yet what do Americans want most of all right now? Are they screaming for a lengthy debate on abortion issues? Do they want us debating whether or not we need to reaffirm our national motto? Are they clamoring for more lenient gun laws?

No, Madam Speaker. The American people want jobs, J-O-B-S, jobs. But my Republican friends are either too stubborn to listen or just don't care enough to do something about the problem. Maybe they are just covering their eyes and plugging their ears, hoping that this crisis will magically disappear. That may work for a 6-year-old who's scared of ghosts, but that's not how you govern a country.

Our unemployment rate is 9 percent. There are just under 14 million unemployed Americans; millions more are earning less now than they were before the economic crisis simply because they were forced with the choice to take a lower-paying job or face unemployment. And what's the Republican response to this problem? Not a jobs bill. In fact, the Republicans haven't brought up a jobs bill once in this Congress. So what, then, is their response to the jobs product? Surprise, surprise; it's a gun bill.

Madam Speaker, what are we doing here? This is nuts. This isn't what the American people sent us here to do. The irony is, many of the new Republicans were allegedly sent here because of their opposition to Federal encroachment on States' rights, but here we are debating a bill that imposes the Federal role on States and undermines States' laws.

This is crazy in normal times, Madam Speaker. It's even crazier today. And unlike the resolution reaffirming our national motto that we debated a few weeks ago, this legislation will have real impacts on people's lives. Madam Speaker, people will be hurt because of this legislation. People, in fact, may die because of this bill. Don't take my word for it; look at the facts. The bill obliterates State and local eligibility rules for concealed weapons. It eliminates the State's discretion to honor another State's permits. It requires States with responsible restrictions--like my home State of Massachusetts--to allow people with permits from States with lax laws to bring concealed weapons into those States. Simply, it allows a person to bring a hidden loaded gun into a State where, under today's laws, they are currently ineligible to carry a concealed weapon.

Now there are reasons that States don't allow certain people to carry concealed weapons, and each State is different. My home State of Massachusetts doesn't issue concealed weapons permits to people who have specific dangerous misdemeanor criminal convictions or alcohol abuse problems, as well as people who have not completed firearm safety training, people who do not have a good character, or those who are under the age of 21.

I would like to insert into the Record a letter from the Massachusetts Secretary of Public Safety and Security in opposition to this bill.

But under this bill, a person who is convicted of spousal abuse in one State could go to a second State for a concealed weapon permit. When they get that permit, this bill allows that felon to bring their weapon into Massachusetts even though they would not be eligible for a concealed weapon permit under Massachusetts laws.

Now my friends on the other side of the aisle will say that this bill is necessary, that more guns mean less crime, that people need to be able to protect themselves. Well, that's not how our Nation's mayors see it. Mayors Against Illegal Guns strongly oppose this bill because it makes our cities less--not more--less safe. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, founded by Boston Mayor Tom Menino and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is made up of over 600 mayors of all political stripes, united to respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners while keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people. And I'm especially grateful for the national leadership of Mayor Tom Menino, who has long been a champion on this issue.

Not only do more than 600 mayors in this coalition oppose this bill, but so do the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Police Foundation, the National Latino Peace Officers Association, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. In fact, not only does the American Bar Association oppose this bill, but so does the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

I would like to insert into the Record the statement by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns in opposition to H.R. 822.

Madam Speaker, Massachusetts is fortunate to have a number of anti- gun violence leaders in the Commonwealth. In addition to Mayor Menino, we are home to Stop Handgun Violence and, specifically, its founder John Rosenthal. Gun safety laws work. They keep our citizens safe. In fact, Massachusetts has the most comprehensive and effective gun violence prevention laws and initiatives and the lowest firearm

fatality rate per 100,000 population of any urban industrial State and second lowest overall behind Hawaii.

Every day more than 150 Americans are shot, and 83 die from gun violence in the United States. A child under 20 years old dies from gun violence every 3 hours, eight kids every single day. We could fill Fenway Park three times over with the 110,000 kids under 20 years old killed by guns in the past 30 years, and there is still no national law requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales in the U.S. In fact, in 33 States, there is no background check requirement or even proof of ID for private gun sales. And today we're going to make it even easier for these people to carry concealed weapons.

Massachusetts is the leader in gun violence prevention. We should be working to prevent gun violence, not encouraging it with legislation like this. Madam Speaker, Federal preemption of Massachusetts law will only result in more innocent and largely preventible gun deaths in my home State. The same holds true for nearly every State of the Union. In fact, preempting State gun laws will make this entire country less safe, and I cannot and I will not support legislation that makes our neighborhoods and our cities and our States less safe.

Madam Speaker, let me conclude by saying, if we want to combat crime, if we want to make our neighborhoods safer, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us and bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. Let's provide people with jobs and economic security. Let's revitalize our neighborhoods that are struggling now in poverty. That's what we should be doing, not debating a bill to make it easier to carry concealed weapons. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on final passage of the bill.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of

Public Safety and Security,

Boston, MA, November 10, 2011.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Speaker Boehner, and

Minority Leader Pelosi: I write to express my strong

opposition to H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry

Reciprocity Act, legislation that would force Massachusetts

to recognize concealed carry permits granted by other states,

even when those permit holders could not meet standards

required by Massachusetts law.

To protect vulnerable people, many states have set

standards for carrying handguns that include criteria beyond

an applicant's ability to pass a federal background check.

Right now, Massachusetts does not issue concealed carry

permits to people who have certain dangerous misdemeanor

criminal convictions or alcohol abuse problems, as well as

individuals who have not completed firearms safety training,

who do not have good character, or who are under the age of

21. H.R. 822, however, would permit citizens of states with

less strict laws to freely carry concealed weapons in our

state.

Varying state standards make it very difficult to know if a

carry permit from another state is valid. If a police officer

is unsure about whether a person is carrying a gun legally or

illegally, especially during a traffic stop, it may result in

a situation which could escalate dangerously.

National concealed carry reciprocity is opposed by more

than 600 mayors, including the mayors of Boston, Cambridge,

Springfield, and Worcester; local law enforcement, including

the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and the

Commissioner of the Boston Police Department; seven state

attorneys general, including Martha Coakley, Attorney General

of Massachusetts; the International Association of Chiefs of

Police; the Major Cities Chiefs Association, representing the

police chiefs of 56 major U.S. cities; the National Black

Police Association; the National Latino Peace Officers

Association; and the National Organization of Black Law

Enforcement Executives.

I urge you to support Massachusetts' law enforcement

officials and the Commonwealth's right to make its own

decisions about how to protect public safety.

Sincerely,

Mary Elizabeth Heffernan,

Secretary.

Marian J. McGovern,

Colonel, Massachusetts State Police.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record dissenting views from the Judiciary Committee, entitled, ``Loosening Restrictions on the Carrying of Concealed Guns in Public Does Not Improve Public Safety.''

Concealed carry laws have not made us safer. As a result,

forcing states with strict permitting standards to recognize

permits issued by states with weak standards would make us

even less safe. Proponents of H.R. 822 have cited research by

John Lott that has been widely discredited. In fact, as

columnist Michelle Malkin has pointed out, Lott has been

accused of fabricating a study on which he bases the claim

that 98 percent of defensive gun uses involved mere

brandishing as opposed to shooting. Malkin reported that Lott

incorrectly tried to attribute the data to three different

studies, and when another researcher offered to independently

verify Lott's findings, Lott claimed to have lost all of his

data in a computer crash. He also could not produce any

financial records, contemporaneous records or any of the

students who supposedly worked on the survey. 78 other

studies conclude that guns are far more likely to be used in

crime than in self-defense. One such study found that the

number of criminal gun uses outnumbered the self-defense use

of a gun by a factor of at least 4 to 1.79

At this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Scott.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Johnson.

Then I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record an article from The New York Times, entitled, ``So Much for Small Government.''

[From the New York Times, Oct. 25, 2011]

So Much for Small Government

House Republicans usually claim to be champions of both

small government and states' rights, which makes it

hypocritical, and downright reckless, that they are obsessed

with taking away the authority of states to decide who is

allowed to carry a concealed and loaded handgun.

On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee voted 19 to 11

for a measure that would do exactly that. Only one

Republican, Representative Dan Lungren of California, joined

the committee's Democratic members in voting against the

bill.

This extreme legislation, the National Right-to-Carry

Reciprocity Act of 2011, would obliterate state and local

eligibility rules for concealed weapons and the state's

discretion to decide whether to honor another's permits.

At least 36 states now set a minimum age of 21 for carrying

concealed guns, and 35 states require some sort of gun-safety

training. Thirty-eight states prohibit people convicted of

certain violent crimes like misdemeanor assault or sex crimes

from carrying concealed weapons.

The act would override those rules, requiring states with

tight restrictions, like New York and California, to allow

people with permits from states with lax laws to tote

concealed and loaded guns in their jurisdiction. Wording

added by the committee exempts people with a concealed-carry

permit from one state from having to meet eligibility

standards set by the state they are visiting.

The measure, pushed by the National Rifle Association,

would undermine legitimate states' rights by nationalizing

lenient gun rules most states have rejected for themselves.

It would increase the chance for gun violence and make it

harder to combat illegal gun trafficking.

Nevertheless, the full House is expected to approve the

bill soon. That would leave it to the Senate, where a similar

bill could surface any day, to protect Americans. Much will

depend on Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader.

He voted for a similar measure two years ago while running

for reelection. Nevada law enforcement groups oppose the

bill, and the state recently ended reciprocity for concealed-

carry permits with Utah and Florida out of concern about the

weak licensing rules in those states. For the safety of the

people in Nevada and elsewhere, he needs to lead in the right

direction this time.

I would also like to insert into the Record an article by Frank Bruni, entitled, ``Have Glock, Will Travel.''

[From the New York Times, Oct. 24, 2011]

Have Glock, Will Travel

(By Frank Bruni)

Between the struggle to fold a sport jacket so it doesn't

wrinkle, the 45-minute wait on a security line if I'm flying,

the price of gas if I'm driving and the worry either way that

I left the coffee maker on, I thought I was pretty well

versed in the inconveniences and stresses of domestic travel.

Hardly! Things could be much, much worse, namely if I were

a gun owner with a permit to carry a concealed firearm in my

home state and an itch to do so in any other state I visited

as well.

As matters now stand, I'd have to defer to the laws of

those states, which vary widely. In some, my permit from back

home would suffice, even if getting it required little more

than proper adult identification, proof of residency and a

smile. The smile might even have been negotiable. A scowl and

a clean felony record and I was good to go.

Other states are sticklers, recognizing only their own

concealed-carry permits and granting or withholding those

based on such killjoy criteria as whether someone has a

violent misdemeanor conviction, a history of alcohol abuse or

any actual training in weapon safety. Some free country,

ours.

Thank heaven for the National Rifle Association, its sights

ever fixed on the forces that try to separate Americans from

the deadly firearms they like to keep snug at their sides.

The N.R.A. is pushing a bill, the National Right-to-Carry

Reciprocity Act of 2011, that would eliminate the gun-toting

traveler's woes. Should it become law, any state that grants

concealed-carry permits, no matter how strict the conditions,

would be forced to honor a visitor's concealed-carry permit

from another state, no matter how lax that state's standards.

Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A.'s chief lobbyist, recently wrote

that the current situation ``presents a nightmare for

interstate travel, as many Americans are forced to check

their Second Amendment rights, and their fundamental right to

self-defense, at the state line.''

Nightmare? I think that term better applies to the N.R.A.,

though it's not the first word that springs to mind when I

mull its current effort.

Contradiction, hypocrisy: those words rush in ahead. The

bill thus far has more than 200 Republican cosponsors in the

House, many of them conservatives who otherwise complain

about attempts by an overbearing federal government to

trample on states' rights in the realms of health care, tort

reform, education--you name it. But to promote concealed

guns, they're encouraging big, bad Washington to trample to

its heart's content.

Imagine how apoplectic they'd be if, on certain other

matters, Washington forced their states to yield to others'

values the way this bill, H.R. 822, would compel New York,

Massachusetts and Connecticut to honor more permissive gun-

control regulations from the South and West. As it happens

these three Northeastern states all perform same-sex

marriages, which more conservative states do not have to

recognize.

It's not fair to talk only about Republicans. H.R. 822 has

dozens of Democratic co-sponsors as well, and when Democrats

controlled Congress for the first two years of Barack Obama's

presidency, they made no major progress on gun control.

Reluctant to cross the N.R.A., they let it slide.

In 2009, when Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in

the Senate, was about to enter a tough reelection battle in

Nevada, he actually voted in favor of legislation highly

similar to H.R. 822. It was defeated. That same year

President Obama signed a law permitting concealed guns in

national parks.

The story on the state level has been just as sad over the

last few years. Wisconsin recently approved concealed-carry

legislation, leaving Illinois the only state in which

civilians can't carry concealed firearms. Several states have

enacted laws spelling out that concealed weapons can in many

circumstances be carried into bars.

One was Tennessee, where a state lawmaker who sponsored the

legislation, Curry Todd, sometimes carries a loaded .38-

caliber gun. I know this because it was beside him when

Nashville Cops pulled him over two weeks ago for drunken

driving. They also charged him with carrying a firearm in

public while intoxicated. At least that's still illegal.

New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and

several other states don't have reciprocity arrangements that

allow someone like Todd to pay an armed courtesy call. That's

because New York officials can deny concealed-carry permits

on a case-by-case basis, whereas many other states--South

Dakota, for example--don't put much stock in such scrutiny.

H.R. 822, now in the House Judiciary Committee, makes a

mockery of our diverse values and strategies for public

safety. If it were enacted, off to New York the South Dakotan

tourist could go, 9-millimeter Glock in tow.

That's not liberty. More like lunacy.

I would also like to insert into the Record a letter to the leadership of this House signed by Martha Coakley, the attorney general of Massachusetts, opposing this legislation.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office of the Attorney

General,

Boston, MA, November 9, 2011.

Re H.R. 822, ``National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of

2011''.

Hon. Harry Reid,

Senate Majority Leader, Hart Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Senate Republican Leader, Russell Senate Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker of the House, The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

House Democratic Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Honorable Congressional Leaders: As the chief law

enforcement officer for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I

am writing to express my strong opposition to H.R. 822, the

``National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011,'' which

would permit individuals who are authorized to carry

concealed firearms in their state of residence to carry

concealed handguns in other states, forcing states to

recognize all other states' permits to carry concealed

firearms. Any legislation that would override the concealed

carry laws of nearly every state is an affront to states'

individual law enforcement efforts and should not be passed

into law.

A national concealed carry reciprocity law would force

states to recognize every other state's permit to carry

concealed, loaded firearms, creating a lowest common

denominator approach to public safety that would undermine

state and municipal authorities, endanger police officers and

make it more difficult to prosecute gun traffickers. As you

know, states issue permits to carry concealed firearms, and

each state establishes its own criteria in deciding who may

carry concealed firearms within its jurisdiction. Indeed,

laws permitting individuals to carry concealed weapons vary

from state-to-state. For example, some states require

residents to complete training and meet other conditions

before obtaining a permit, while others do not.

National concealed carry reciprocity could create serious

and potentially life-threatening situations for police

officers. During police traffic stops, it would be nearly

impossible for officers to verify every other state's carry

permits. In addition, this legislation would make it easier

for gun traffickers to travel across state lines with

concealed, loaded firearms, exposing police officers to

unnecessary danger and making our communities less safe.

This dangerous initiative is opposed by a broad coalition

of national law enforcement organizations, including the

International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major

Cities Chiefs Association, and the Police Foundation; more

than 600 members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns; various

state law enforcement organizations; faith leaders;

prosecutors, including the American Prosecutors Association

and the American Bar Association; and the National Network to

End Domestic Violence, representing 56 domestic violence

prevention organizations nationwide--a similar coalition to

the one that helped to defeat this legislation on the floor

of the Senate in 2009.

Massachusetts has some of most stringent firearms safety

protections in the nation. By allowing out-of-state permit

holders to bring concealed, loaded firearms into our

communities where they would not otherwise be allowed to

carry, this legislation would greatly undermine public safety

in our Commonwealth. A national concealed carry reciprocity

amendment puts our citizens and police at risk and takes away

the ability of state and local government to carefully craft

laws that protect the public.

I urge Congress to defeat this dangerous initiative.

Cordially,

Martha Coakley,

Massachusetts Attorney General.

Madam Speaker, we just heard from the gentleman from Georgia that we should somehow be grateful that the Rules Committee majority threw some crumbs our way. But the fact is this is not an open rule. This is not an open process. And for a majority that came in saying that everything was going to be open, they have not kept their promise, and this is far from it. A lot of good amendments were not made in order. Members don't have the right to offer amendments here on the floor.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, out of fairness, and especially my Republican friend, in keeping with your promise when you took the majority, please vote ``no'' on this rule.

I will also say, Madam Speaker, that I oppose this bill because it tramples on the rights of my State and it tramples on the rights of a number of States that have reasonable guidelines for who can carry a concealed weapon. And under this bill, those guidelines all go away, so the lowest common denominator carries the day. I don't think that's good for public safety. And if you care about States' rights, it's not goods for States' rights advocates either.

But I want to just spend my final moments just reminding my colleagues that we have an economic crisis before us. There are 14 million Americans without jobs. There are millions more who are underemployed.

We just came back from another congressional break. I don't know where you went on your congressional break, but if you went back to your district, I find it hard to believe that the most pressing issue that faces your constituency is trying to figure out a way to make it easier to carry concealed weapons from State to State to State. I just don't believe that that's what people are talking about, certainly not people in my congressional district. My people are talking about jobs.

When I'm at the airport, people are talking to me about jobs. That's what they want us to focus on, not on reaffirming the national motto of the United States as ``In God We Trust.'' I mean, we wasted a day on that. It didn't need reaffirming. There it is right up there in gold lettering above where the Speaker sits. It's on the back of the dollar bill. Why did we have to spend time debating that?

And today we're not talking about jobs; we're talking about a gun bill? Now, I know that the special interest lobbyist, the National Rifle Association, they like this and they want us to move forward on this. But put the special interests aside for a second and put your constituents first.

What do our constituents want us to do? They want us to fix this economy. We should be debating some of the components of the President's jobs bill or a jobs bill of your own. But we should be talking about how to put people back to work, not spending time here talking about how to make it easier to carry a concealed weapon from State to State to State. This is nuts that we're spending and wasting this time on this issue.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia said a majority of Members favor this bill; therefore, we should bring it to the floor. Well, you know what? A majority of Members of this Chamber also support a bill to hold China accountable for the fact that China manipulates its currency and, as a result of that, if we actually held them accountable, we could actually create an estimated 1 million to 1.5 million jobs in America. A majority of Members of this House on both sides of the aisle support that, yet we can't get that to the floor. That will help create some jobs. I mean, there's bipartisan support for that. There's bipartisan support for the components of the President's jobs bill, yet you will not bring it to the floor. Instead, we're dealing with this stuff.

Again, this may be good for pleasing the special interests, but it is not what we should be doing in this Chamber. What's good for this country is to focus on the economy. What's good for this country is to focus on jobs.

I would say to my Republican friends, your indifference on the issue of jobs is shameful, is absolutely

shameful. There are millions of Americans out of work, millions underemployed, people worried about whether they can pay their mortgages, pay their heating bills, pay their prescription drug bills, whether they can afford to send their kids to college, and this is what we're spending our time on? Give me a break.

We need to refocus in this Congress. We need to get our priorities straight.

I'm going to tell you, at the top of the list is not reaffirming the motto of this country. It's not abortion bills or gun bills. What's at the top of the list is jobs. Let's put America back to work.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this restrictive rule and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and let's bring a jobs bill to this floor.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 822.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, was introduced by Mr. Stearns of Florida and Mr. Shuler of North Carolina and is cosponsored by 245 Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. This landmark legislation recognizes the importance of the Second Amendment and makes it easier for individuals with concealed carry permits to travel to other States. Forty-nine States now allow concealed carry permits, and 40 of these States also extend some degree of reciprocity to permit holders from other States.

This bill simply applies the States' reciprocal agreements nationwide. This legislation requires States that currently allow people to carry concealed firearms to recognize other States' valid concealed carry permits, much like States recognize driver's licenses issued by other States. The bill recognizes the right of States to determine eligibility requirements for their own residents.

State, local, and Federal laws and regulations regarding how, when, and where a concealed firearm can be carried that apply to a resident will apply equally to a nonresident. For example, many States bar individuals from carrying firearms in a bar, at a sporting event, or in a State park. Under this legislation, all of these restrictions will apply to nonresidents as well.

H.R. 822 also addresses concerns regarding the ability of law enforcement agencies to confirm the validity of an out-of-state concealed carry permit. The bill requires a person to show both a valid government-issued identification document, such as a license or passport, and a valid concealed carry license or permit.

State law enforcement agencies can verify the validity of an out-of- state concealed permit through the Nlets system. Nlets is available to law enforcement officials in all 50 States 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Data from the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report shows that right- to-carry States, or those that widely allow concealed

carry, have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates, as compared to the rest of the country.

Opponents of this bill have noted that some States would be required to recognize concealed carry permits issued by States with different standards of eligibility. However, 40 States already grant reciprocity to other States, including to States with different eligibility requirements. The States would not do this if different eligibility requirements were a concern.

The Second Amendment is a fundamental right to bear arms that should not be constrained by State boundary lines. Opposition to this legislation comes from those who believe concealed carry permit holders often commit violent crimes, which is demonstrably false, or from those who want to restrict the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms. This legislation enhances public safety and protects the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 822.

Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the writer, author, and creator of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, first I would like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the Courts Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Adams), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

H.R. 822 is important legislation that recognizes that Americans' ability to exercise their fundamental constitutional rights should not disappear at their State's border. The parade of horribles that have been alleged by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are simply not true. Federal law already prohibits felons, domestic abusers, and illegal drug users from possessing a firearm. This legislation does not change that. If a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal law, they cannot carry a concealed weapon under this bill.

The arguments we have heard so often today against this legislation are against guns in the hands of violent criminals generally, not against legally permitted concealed weapons. Concealed-carry laws have shown that concealed weapons actually lower violent crime rates in a jurisdiction. H.R. 822 simply permits law-abiding Americans to take their Second Amendment rights with them when they travel.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment undercuts the uniform eligibility standard that forms the foundation of this legislation. The underlying bill allows individuals with valid State-issued permits to carry a concealed firearm in all other States that also authorize concealed carry. This Second Amendment right to bear arms is, therefore, limited by this amendment.

Forty-nine States authorize concealed carry, and 40 of those States have reciprocity agreements with all or some of the other concealed- carry States. But these agreements vary from State to State, creating a patchwork of laws that limits reciprocity, creates confusion for gun owners, and undermines the Second Amendment. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia keeps this patchwork in place by exempting States with reciprocity agreements from the bill. The amendment prevents individuals from taking advantage of nationwide concealed- carry reciprocity unless the State they reside in has a separate agreement with the State they wish to travel to.

While I appreciate my colleague's dedication to the concept of States' rights, I think it is misapplied to this legislation. H.R. 822 upholds States' rights in several important ways:

First, it does not apply to those jurisdictions that prohibit concealed carry, such as Illinois and the District of Columbia;

Second, the bill does not affect a State's right to set eligibility requirements for its own residents;

Third, H.R. 822 does not impact State laws governing how concealed firearms are possessed or carried within the various States. All State, Federal, and local laws that prohibit, for example, carrying a concealed handgun in a public building or a place of worship apply equally to any nonresident concealed-carry holder; and

Fourth, this legislation does not create any authority for the Federal Government to regulate concealed-carry permits. No Federal agency has any role in the implementation or oversight of this bill which is left, rightfully, up to the States. But, most importantly, this bill respects and protects an individual's right to bear arms while they are traveling.

In two recent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment endows individuals with the right to keep and bear arms, and this right is based in large part on the right to defend one's self. Americans don't need to simply defend themselves in their homes. They must also be able to defend themselves outside their homes and while traveling to other States.

Eighty percent of violent crime occurs outside the home, according to the Justice Department. Americans cannot fully be empowered to defend themselves if they are prevented from exercising all their Second Amendment rights. H.R. 822 advances the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and I regret, I believe this amendment infringes upon that right.

For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The whole point of this bill is to allow those who have concealed- carry permits to freely carry their weapons into other States that also have and recognize concealed-carry permits.

If we were to accept this amendment, in my judgment, we would be infringing upon the Second Amendment. I feel that the Second Amendment should be enforced. We ought to interpret it broadly. We ought to allow individuals to take advantage of their Second Amendment rights, travel freely from one State to another without restrictions except for the restrictions that are required locally by their State and local governments.

I mentioned awhile ago that one recognition of State prerogatives that we have in the bill is that, for example, if one State does not allow individuals who have concealed-carry permits to go into a public building or a sports event or some other type of location, they are not going to be allowed to do so even if they have a concealed-carry permit from out of State.

So, once again, we need to respect the right that is given to us by the Second Amendment in a complete, full way. We need to allow individuals with concealed-carry permits to travel freely from State to State. This underlying bill does that, with one exception: the State of Illinois does not recognize concealed-carry permits. You would not be able to carry a weapon into that State. But except for that one State, we need to embrace the Second Amendment in every way that we can practically, recognize the Supreme Court has done the same thing, and allow individuals to travel with those concealed-carry permits.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment frustrates the basic purpose of H.R. 822. It requires that States pass legislation to implement the bill's provisions.

The Supreme Court, in two recent cases, has recognized a fundamental individual right to bear arms that is largely based on the right to defend oneself and one's family. Over 80 percent of violent crime occurs outside of one's home, according to the Department of Justice. This means that for the right to bear arms in self-defense to have any meaning, law-abiding citizens with permits should be able to carry firearms outside of their homes and sometimes across State boundaries.

Under current law 40 States have established a patchwork of reciprocal agreements that can be confusing for concealed-carry permit holders to navigate. H.R. 822 provides uniformity to our concealed- carry laws by creating nationwide reciprocity for concealed-carry permit holders. By contrast, this amendment allows States to opt out of H.R. 822's Federal grant of reciprocity. And it provides that only States that choose to pass laws implementing the legislation must recognize out-of-state concealed-carry permits. This amendment would, in effect, just continue the status quo and so would be of no help to individuals with concealed-carry permits.

Since 2004 police officers have enjoyed the right to use a concealed- carry permit to take a firearm across State lines. And, in 2010, President Obama signed legislation to include other law enforcement personnel who could take advantage of this ability. It is ironic that some of these groups now want to deny this same right to law-abiding citizens with concealed-carry permits.

According to a 2009 Zogby poll, 83 percent of those polled said they supported concealed-carry laws--83 percent. Over 4 million Americans across the country have qualified for a concealed-carry permit. They, most likely, endorse this legislation.

I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York's mentioning States' prerogatives, and I hope she will express the same sentiments about other pieces of legislation. H.R. 822 retains the States' ability to regulate firearms in their own States by making clear that all State regulations regarding how a firearm is carried continue to apply to both residents and nonresidents, and by keeping in place the State's own permitting process.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment allows States to prohibit nonresidents from carrying a concealed firearm if they did not take part in a firearm safety class that included a live-fire exercise as part of the permitting process. This amendment would, for the first time ever, insert the Federal Government into the State's concealed-carry permitting process. H.R. 822, by contrast, protects

each State's ability to set its own eligibility requirements for concealed-carry permits.

Thirty-seven States require some degree of firearms training. The gentleman from Georgia's home State, interestingly, does not require any training and, thus, under this amendment, its citizens would not be able to enjoy the Federal grant of reciprocity provided by H.R. 822.

The States carry out their training requirements in a number of ways. Some States allow applicants to certify their proficiency through classroom training, while other States recognize prior military or police service to meet these requirements. Virginia, for example, provides eight different ways to meet the training requirements.

This amendment is silent on a number of important issues. Is prior military or law enforcement service sufficient to meet the live-fire requirement? Does an applicant need to go through this training each time they renew their permit or is it sufficient to have completed a course the first time they applied? These ambiguities give us more reason to oppose this amendment.

We know that concealed-carry laws do reduce crime. A study by John Lott and David Mustard found that when concealed-carry laws went into effect, murders fell by over 7 percent and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent, respectively. These findings have been confirmed by 18 other studies, but none have found that concealed carry increases crime.

The benefit of concealed-carry laws should not be measured only by the instances of self-defense, but also by the number of crimes that are prevented from occurring in the first place.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the gentleman from Georgia agrees with me that this amendment does insert the Federal Government into the States' concealed-carry permitting process. I would simply say that that admission and the fact that that is the case is enough reason to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and as a compliment to my colleagues who just left the floor, I'd like to compliment them for the bipartisanship that was shown. And perhaps bipartisanship is becoming in vogue because this is a bipartisan effort as well.

It is my firm belief that our Nation, while we have some differences on many issues, we do want to unite

around issues that are crucial and critical to all of us. I salute what they have done, and I look forward to this hour of bipartisanship as well.

I'm honored to be joined today on the floor by my colleague, the Honorable Ted Poe from Texas. He and I have been sponsoring this resolution on domestic violence for some years--since 2005, I believe-- and I am honored that he is here with us today. I will be giving a statement. And after my statement, I will yield to my good friend from the State of Texas, in the Houston area. Thereafter, we have other Members who are present who would of course want to weigh in on this subject. But before I do, let me just thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for making this time available to us. It's important that we have this opportunity to address this issue not only here in Congress, but address it in such a way as to make it clear to our friends and our constituents at home that this is something that is exceedingly important to us, the issue of domestic violence.

So Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time. I thank the leadership for the time. And I thank all of the Members who will be appearing today for the time that they will share with us.

I'd like to, at this time, present my opening statement. Thereafter, I will yield as I have indicated.

Mr. Speaker, there are several Federal actions that have been instituted over the past 20 years to combat the issue of domestic violence. I shall highlight some of the many actions that have been taken.

Domestic Violence Awareness Month was first observed 22 years ago in the month of October. This month provides an opportunity for our communities to recommit themselves to keeping the victims and the families of domestic violence safe while holding the perpetrators accountable for their actions.

I'm honored to say that the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, which was championed by then-Senator Joe Biden, has created a new culture for police officers, judges, and those who work in the courthouse to treat this crime as the serious crime that it is, and it is a serious crime. I look forward to supporting the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. And I want to say, by way of a little bit of commentary, that I was a lawyer practicing before we had a change in this culture. And I saw how this culture that existed at that time devastated the lives of many persons who were victims of domestic violence because there was this thought that this was something that was a family issue, that it was something that people should resolve themselves, they should try to work things out. I thank God that that attitude no longer exists, and that if it does exist in some quarters, we are working to change it. I would also add that the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act supports emergency shelters, crisis intervention programs, and community education about domestic violence.

This Congress has done much to try to reach out not only to the victims, but also to the various communities against the length and breadth of the country to make sure that communities are well prepared and equipped to help those in need of some assistance.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided law enforcement with the tools it needed to protect families. It specifically included $225 million for Violence Against Women programs and $100 million for programs that are a part of the Victims of Crime Act. These funds will supplement Federal dollars so that local providers can retain and hire the personnel to serve victims and hold offenders accountable. We also provided critical funding for law enforcement to keep cops on the street and to support law enforcement programs and services through the Byrne Grant program. In 2010, 854 local domestic violence programs received stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which allowed them to maintain or create 1,384 jobs.

Awareness of domestic violence is growing. All over this country and over the last several decades the work of many individuals and organizations has created a sea of change in the way we as a society look upon the issue of domestic violence. Police, courts, and the public used to consider it a private family matter, as I indicated previously. Not surprisingly, domestic violence was close to, if not the, number one underreported crime in this country. Today, there is much more awareness. And we have started to pass critical legislation at both the State and Federal levels so that we can combat domestic violence properly.

We have made a substantial impact on the lives of domestic violence survivors through laws, programs, services, and funding, but our jobs are not yet done. We have seen much progress. However, there is still much more to be done. In the year 2010, a survey was done by the National Network to End Domestic Violence. This survey found that in one day, while more than 70,000 people received help from domestic violence programs, over 9,000 requests for help went unanswered because of a shortage of resources.

Many victims continue to suffer in silence, and for many others who do come forward, there simply are not enough resources available. Victims of domestic violence should have access to medical and legal services, counseling, transitional housing, safety planning, and other supportive services so that they can escape the cycle of abuse.

The problem of domestic violence is not confined to any one group of people but crosses all economic, racial, gender, educational, religious, and societal barriers, and it is sustained too often by societal indifference. Make no mistake about it, when domestic violence occurs, it has a long-term damaging effect. And it has this effect on the victim, but not only the victim; it also leaves a mark on the family of the victim, the friends, and the community at large.

In my home State of Texas, according to the Texas Council on Family Violence--and this is a special report; it indicates that 37 women in Harris County, a county where my district happens to be--37 women lost their lives due to domestic violence in 2010. One hundred forty-two women were killed by their intimate partners in 2010. There were 56 occurrences of murder-suicides in Texas in 2010, which often left children without one or both of their parents. Three 17-year-old high school students were murdered in Texas in 2010. Five pregnant women were murdered in Texas in 2010. No year is a good year for the victims of domestic violence, and 2010 was no exception.

The current statistics are staggering. One in every four women will experience domestic violence during her lifetime. Three women are killed by an acquaintance or former intimate partner each day in America, on average. The cost of intimate partner violence exceeds $5.8 billion each year, including $4.1 billion in direct health care expenses. Domestic violence has been estimated to cost employers in the U.S. up to $13 billion annually.

Sexual violence is intolerable in our society because it creates a cycle of violence.

As many as 15.5 million children witness domestic violence every year in our country. Children who are exposed to this sort of violence are more likely to attempt suicide, abuse drugs, run away from home, engage in teenage prostitution, and commit sexual assault crimes.

Men exposed to physical abuse, sexual abuse, and adult domestic violence as children were almost four times more likely than other men to have perpetrated domestic violence as adults, according to a large survey that has been reported.

This is a call to action. Let us rededicate ourselves to the goal of ending violence against women and helping heal the lives of domestic violence survivors and their families. No one should have to live in fear in their own home, and we must continue to work to eliminate these acts of violence from our society.

Nearly 1.3 million women will confront violent acts this year. America's leaders and our Nation's families must not let this stand. Let us continue to work to end domestic violence and make every home a safe home.

I urge my colleagues to stand with us and support the survivors and their families by supporting the programs that target this insidious ill of domestic violence.

At this time I am honored to yield to my colleague and friend from Houston, Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, would you please make me aware of the amount of time that remains to us.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

At this time, I am honored to bring to the floor a very dear friend from the State of California who has been an outspoken supporter of all of these bills to help victims of domestic violence, the Honorable Lynn Woolsey.

I thank you for your words, and I trust that you will continue the fight. You have been an outstanding champion for women's rights.

At this time, I am honored to yield to the Honorable Barbara Lee, the former chairperson of the CBC and a great Member from the State of California.

I thank the gentlelady from California.

How much time do we have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you very much.

At this time, I yield to another Californian, the Honorable Jim Costa.

I thank the gentleman for his words.

I now yield to the gentlelady from Texas, who is a colleague, and we share a common boundary in the State of Texas--our districts are adjacent to each other--the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee.

I thank the lady.

I now yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Speier). I would also add that this is a colleague who served with me on Financial Services, and I found that she has been a strong advocate for the rights of women.

I thank the lady, especially for citing the statistical information. It is important for our Nation and our country to understand that these are real people who are being harmed and that this is not something that occurs in some segments of society. This crosses all lines--economic lines, gender lines, political lines--and it's up to us to have bipartisan efforts to end this.

I'm honored that my friend, Mr. Poe, has joined us today, as this has been a bipartisan effort. But we've got to get this message back to the communities because indifference is what allows this to continue to a certain extent. No one should be indifferent. Everybody has a duty to report it, everybody has a duty to condemn it. And if we do this, then we can make every person who performs an act of violence persona non grata in our communities.

I want to thank the Speaker for the time. One hour is never enough to cover all that we should cover, but I'm grateful to the leadership for giving us the 1 hour that we've had.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 463 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 463, a rule which provides for the consideration of an important piece of legislation, H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.

I am proud to sponsor this rule, which provides for a structured amendment process that will allow Members to have a thorough debate on a wide variety of relevant and germane amendments to H.R. 822. We have allowed 10 amendments to this bill--two Republican amendments and eight Democratic amendments. Even on a contentious bill, a bill where it would be easy to shut down the process, we not only are allowing amendments, but of those that we will be debating on the floor, the vast majority are Democratic amendments.

We did this not because it was the easy thing to do; we did it because it was the right thing to do. It brought transparency to the debate, and it is in keeping with the promises that the Republican Party made to the American people for a freer, more open process.

Madam Speaker, until coming to this body 10 months ago, I had spent my entire career as a cop, the last 10 years as sheriff of Hernando County, Florida. During my 38 years in law enforcement, I found that disarming honest citizens does nothing to reduce crime. If anything, all it does is keep law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves from violent criminals. Although I know this just from my anecdotal experience, research backs up the claim.

For example, statistics indicate that citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. In my home State of Florida, only 0.01 percent of nearly 1.2 million permits have been revoked because of firearm crimes committed by permit holders. Additionally, evidence indicates that crime declines in States with right-to-carry laws. Since Florida became a right-to-carry State in 1987, Florida's total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 32 percent and 58 percent, respectively.

Because of this evidence, as well as my firsthand experience, I am a proud defender of our Second Amendment right: ensuring ``the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' My history as a law enforcement officer is also why I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.

H.R. 822 is a good, bipartisan bill, which enhances the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. Today, if I drive from my home State of Florida into Georgia, Georgia recognizes that my Florida driver's license is still valid even once I cross the State line. H.R. 822 would require States to recognize each other's legally issued concealed carry permits in the same

way. This legislation would take a comprehensive approach to helping law-abiding citizens navigate the patchwork of State concealed carry laws.

H.R. 822 does not--let me repeat--does not create a national concealed carry permit system nor does it establish any nationalized standard for a carry permit. H.R. 822 respects the States' abilities to create their own gun usage laws as well as their own permitting processes.

I am sure that we will hear arguments from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying that H.R. 822 somehow makes it easier for people to get a gun. Let me assure you that, again, this is not the case. This legislation does not mandate that anyone suddenly be given a gun nor does it relax any of a State's current permitting laws.

During my nearly 40 years as a cop, I learned you just can't talk about guns. When you're talking about gun crime, you need to look at two distinct classes of guns: there are legal guns, and there are illegal guns. I can tell you, as a cop, you don't worry about the legal guns, the guns that people bought from an authorized source, that they registered with the proper authorities, that they took the necessary classes to learn how to use responsibly, and that they got their legal concealed carry permit. In my experience, you worry about the illegal guns, guns that somebody purposefully bought off the radar, either because they aren't legally allowed to own a gun or because they're going to use them for illegal purposes.

H.R. 822 doesn't get into that difference. What it does is ensures that legal gun owners don't accidentally break a law simply because they brought their fully permitted gun into another State. This legislation gives peace of mind to Americans traveling across State lines with a legally registered, concealed firearm, knowing that they can practice their constitutional right to bear arms.

Again, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 822 and support its passage.

With that, I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' on the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the aisle talks about a jobs bill. We're not talking about it right now. But if you look at this card, we have over 20 jobs bills that have passed out of this body that are sitting in the Senate today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In 2007 a Colorado man named Matthew Murray allegedly wrote online, ``All I want to do is kill and injure as many Christians as I can.'' Murray then went on to a shooting rampage, first killing two young students at a missionary training center outside of Denver. And then at a gathering of 7,000 people in and around the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, with a rifle and a backpack full of ammunition, Murray entered the church and opened fire, killing two sisters. Murray was ultimately stopped and killed by a church member and a volunteer security guard, Jeanne Assam, who has a concealed-carry permit and once worked in law enforcement. Assam shot Murray several times, leading him to kill himself.

I reserve the balance of my time.

The gentleman talks about States' rights. We agree, there are States that do not have concealed-carry permits. So it is within the States' rights to decide how they are going to regulate that particular issue in regards to weapons in their State.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).

Madam Speaker, I advise my colleague from Massachusetts that I have one remaining speaker.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Madam Speaker, I am always amazed at what goes on in these Chambers. We hear from the other side of the aisle about talking about jobs, even though this House has passed 20--20, count them--jobs bills. If you don't believe it, read it.

We talk about issues about ``In God We Trust.'' I think it is something that we should affirm here in America, about our belief in God.

I believe that the Second Amendment is not a special interest group. I believe the Second Amendment needs to be protected at all costs. You've heard some in this House that would take away our right to even carry or possess a firearm.

Madam Speaker, in 40 years in law enforcement, it wasn't just guns that killed people; it was every object imaginable, from fists to feet to pipes to kitchen knives and baseball bats.

Madam Speaker, this is about the ability for those that have a legitimate carry permit to go across the State line and not be subject to arrest, someone who makes an honest mistake by going across the State line that doesn't have a reciprocity agreement with their current State and they have a carry permit.

Madam Speaker, this is more about what's right with America in regards to upholding our Second Amendment, our constitutional right. And so those that are in favor of doing away with all types of guns, I guess, it smacks that they disagree with our Founding Fathers and our Second Amendment right.

Madam Speaker, I support this rule and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. H.R. 822 protects the rights of legal gun owners throughout the United States.

I've heard this debate this afternoon about the dangers of gun crime. I completely agree. Guns are dangerous tools that need to be treated with respect. Guns can be used by people to kill other people. However, what I saw in those 40 years as a cop is we need to talk about these in broader terms. What we really need to do is talk about the difference between legal and illegal guns.

Most people who use a gun to kill a human being are not just using a gun they obtained legally, that they are licensed legally, that they got a legal concealed-carry permit for. When you look at the numbers of CCW permit holders that have actually violated the law, at least in the State of Florida, it's .001 percent.

There are people that are criminals, and they're criminals simply for having a firearm. Even in the State of Florida, a felon can't possess a firearm. The discussion of what to do with these folks and how to keep them from illegally possessing a firearm is another debate at another time.

Today we're talking about one thing. We're talking about legal gun owners to legally travel from one State to another that have a concealed weapons permit. I support that effort, and that's why I'm a proud cosponsor--and stand here today--of H.R. 822 and as the sponsor of this rule, H. Res. 463.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this strongly--I underline ``strongly''--bipartisan legislation.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.