Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 645, I call up the bill (H.R. 38) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 38.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.

Mr. Speaker, throughout my career in elected office, I have believed in and adhered to two fundamental principles regarding firearms policy: first, the right guaranteed to law-abiding Americans by the Second Amendment must be aggressively protected and preserved; second, the laws we have on the books need to be enforced to the fullest extent possible. The bipartisan bill before us today does both.

H.R. 38 ensures that law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment right does not end when they cross State lines. The bill allows law-abiding gun owners with valid State-issued concealed carry firearm permits or those who live in so-called constitutional carry States to carry a concealed firearm in any other State that also allows concealed carry.

We know that citizens who carry a concealed firearm are not only better prepared to act in their own self-defense, but also in the defense of others. Take, for instance, an incident that occurred just last November on a highway in Florida. Lee County Sheriff's Deputy Dean Bardes had just concluded a high-speed chase just off Interstate 75. As Deputy Bardes approached to apprehend the suspect, the suspect, Edward Strother, violently attacked Deputy Bardes.

A witness on the scene told reporters that the attacker ``just started punching him and hitting and hitting and hitting. I was afraid for the police officer. I thought he was going to kill him.''

Fortunately for Deputy Bardes, Ashad Russell, a Florida concealed carry permit holder, was also watching the attack unfold. Mr. Russell pulled his gun and approached the altercation. He told Strother he would shoot him if he didn't stop beating the deputy. The State Attorney's Office said Strother ignored Russell's commands to stop beating the deputy, so Russell fired his gun three times, hitting and fatally wounding the assailant. Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott has hailed Russell as a hero.

Importantly, this bill also contains the Fix NICS Act of 2017. This is a bipartisan and bicameral measure. The Fix NICS Act takes steps to ensure that State and Federal agencies enter all relevant records into the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This bill will help ensure people who are legally prohibited from having guns, like those with violent felony convictions, do not obtain them.

The shooting at Virginia Tech and the church shootings in Charleston, South Carolina, and Sutherland Springs, Texas, are tragic reminders of what can happen when all relevant records are not entered into the system.

Our NICS system is only as good as the information within it. This important piece of legislation will ensure that more of the information already required to be uploaded to NICS under current law is actually placed in the NICS system.

Taken together, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and the Fix NICS Act preserve and protect the right guaranteed to us by the Second Amendment and ensure that those prohibited by existing law from receiving a firearm are prevented from doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

I want to thank the lead sponsor, Mr. Hudson of North Carolina, for his hard work on this bill. I would also like to thank the authors of the Fix NICS provisions, Mr. Culberson and Mr. Cuellar, for their important contributions to the legislation before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), the lead sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I include in the Record an article entitled, `` `Good Samaritan' Kills Active Shooter in Texas Sports Bar,'' in which a shooter with two guns and two knives entered a sports bar and was shot by an individual that the police labeled a Good Samaritan who happened to be eating at the restaurant with his wife. He was a concealed carry permit holder. He told his wife to get down on the ground, and then he shot the assailant.

[From nbcnews.com, May 4, 2017]

`Good Samaritan' Kills Active Shooter in Texas Sports Bar: Police

(By Phil McCausland)

A ``good Samaritan'' with a gun killed an active shooter

who may have been gearing up for a deadly rampage at a Texas

sports bar Wednesday night, police said.

When 48-year-old James Jones walked inside the Zona

Caliente Sports Bar, started yelling and then allegedly shot

and killed Cesar Perez--a 37-year-old restaurant manager

who'd attempted to calm him down--Arlington police said

witnesses were afraid they would be next.

In addition to the gun used to kill Perez, police say Jones

had another semiautomatic pistol and two knives on him. The

serial number on the second gun had been scratched off, and

Jones did not have a gun license, police said.

``He definitely had the capacity, if he wanted, to commit

further violence and potentially kill other patrons in the

business,'' Arlington Police Lieutenant Chris Cook told NBC

News, adding that it did not appear that the shooter knew his

victim.

An armed ``good Samaritan''--as the Arlington Police

labeled him--happened to be eating at the restaurant with his

wife. A concealed carry permit holder, he told her to get

down on the ground and then shot Jones in the back.

``I don't think the shooter even knew where the rounds were

coming from because he started shooting at the front door,''

Cook said, who described the scene as ``chaotic.''

Police reviewed video surveillance and pieced together the

incident via witness interviews, but it remains unclear how

many shots were fired by either individual. Police were

looking into Jones' background to see whether he suffered

from any mental illnesses and were awaiting test results to

find out if he was under the influence.

The man who took down Jones wished to maintain his

anonymity, police said, noting that he felt overwhelmed but

relieved that he prevented further violence.

``We're thankful that the good `Samaritan' acted quickly

and decisively to end the threat,'' Cook said. ``We never

recommend people get involved. That's a personal decision

that a citizen has to make.''

Use of force and firearms expert Emanuel Kapelsohn told NBC

News that, from his understanding, the man who took down the

shooter reacted appropriately.

``I think it's to be applauded,'' he said. ``Not everybody

in the world ought to own a gun. Not everybody in the world

ought to carry a gun. Not everyone in the world ought to

engage an armed criminal where innocent people could be

potentially injured.''

``But this good Samaritan obviously had the ability to do

what he did,'' Kapelsohn added. ``Who knows how many people

would be dead if he had not acted?''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to include in the Record a letter signed by 23 of those States' attorneys general who say, in part, in this letter: ``Strong evidence indicates that concealed carry permit holders actually deter and reduce crime.'' This is taking action by passing this legislation.

Attorney General of Missouri,

Jefferson City, MO, December 1, 2017.

Re Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S.

446) and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R.

38).

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Chuck Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressional Leaders: As the chief legal officers of

our States, we, the undersigned 23 state Attorneys General,

write in support of the Constitutional Concealed Carry

Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S. 446) and the Concealed Carry

Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38). We share a strong interest

in the protection of our citizens' Second Amendment right to

keep and bear arms, and we are committed to supporting

federal and state policies to preserve that constitutional

right. These bills, if enacted, would eliminate significant

obstacles to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms

for millions of Americans in every State.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides an

individual right to own and carry a firearm for self-defense.

The Amendment states that ``[a] well regulated Militia, being

necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the

people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' U.S.

Const. amend. II. As the Supreme Court recognized in District

of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008), the Second

Amendment ``guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and

carry weapons in case of confrontation.'' Indeed,

``individual self-defense is `the central component' of the

Second Amendment right.'' McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561

U.S. 742, 767 (2010) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599).

The core interest protected by this right is self-defense

by law-abiding citizens. This right therefore extends to

weapons ``in common use'' and ``typically possessed by law-

abiding citizens for lawful purposes.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at

624-25, 627 (quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174,

179 (1939)).

The Second Amendment historically has guaranteed the right

to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. In

Heller, the Supreme Court relied on the preeminent authority

on English law for the founding generation, William

Blackstone, who explained that the right to self-defense,

codified by the framers in the Second Amendment, was an

``individual right protecting against both public and private

violence.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at 594 (citations omitted). As

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have written, `` `[s]elf-defense

has to take place wherever the person happens to be,' and in

some circumstances a person may be more vulnerable in a

public place than in his own house.'' Peruta v. California,

137 S. Ct. 1995, 1998-99 (2017) (Thomas, J., and Gorsuch, J.,

dissenting from the denial of certiorari) (quoting Eugene

Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for

Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda,

56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1515 (2009)).

To be sure, the right to carry firearms for self-defense is

not unlimited, and the Supreme Court has stated that its

decisions do not cast doubt on the ``longstanding

prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the

mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in

sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or

laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial

sale of arms.'' Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27. But these

exceptions all assume that the right to carry a weapon in

self-defense applies in public places generally.

The Second Amendment, moreover, applies to both the Federal

Government and the States. The Second Amendment is a right

``fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,'' and so it

applies not just to the Federal Government but also to the

States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767; see also Caetano v.

Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1027 (2016) (per curiam).

Nevertheless, some activist courts have held that the

Second Amendment has no application at all outside the home,

and thus have upheld state laws banning any firearm ownership

outside the home. See, e.g., Peruta v. California, 137 S. Ct.

1995, 1997, 1999 (2017) (Thomas, J. and Gorsuch, J.,

dissenting from

the denial of certiorari) (collecting cases); e.g., Williams

v. State, 10 A.3d 1167, 1177 (Md. 2011); Mack v. United

States, 6 A.3d 1224, 1236 (D.C. 2010). Further, ten states

refuse to recognize any out-of-state concealed carry permits,

and many more refuse to recognize out-of-state concealed

carry permits unless certain conditions are met.

The citizen interest in self-defense, supported and

protected by the Second Amendment, is called into serious

question by such blanket refusals to permit carrying firearms

in self-defense outside the home or to allow non-resident

visitors to carry concealed weapons. Because some States

refuse to give the Second Amendment its full import, Congress

should enact concealed-carry reciprocity legislation, to help

implement and enforce the constitutional right to self-

defense for millions of law-abiding Americans across the

country.

The exercise of Congress's power is particularly warranted

in this case because the States that refuse to allow law-

abiding, non-resident visitors to carry concealed weapons

place their occupants in greater danger--not less--from gun

violence. These States leave citizens without any real option

for self-defense, and so it is not surprising that they have

been unable to show that their regulations reduce crime.

Authorizing permit holders to carry across state lines will

not result in an increased risk of crime. Concealed carry

permit holders are among the most law-abiding members of

society, and those States that allow for reciprocal

concealed-carry permits have not encountered any significant

safety issues. In Texas, for example, state data on permit

holders shows that, compared to the general public, they are

``ten times less likely to commit a crime, eleven times less

likely to commit an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon,

and seven times less likely to commit deadly conduct with a

firearm.'' Kevin Ballard, Peruta v. County of San Diego: An

Individual Right to Self-Defense Outside the Home and the

Application of Strict Scrutiny to Second Amendment

Challenges, 47 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 25, 59 (2017).

Further, strong evidence indicates that concealed-carry

permit holders actually deter and reduce crime. Those who

engage in lawful and licensed concealed carry are not only

less likely to be involved in criminal activity themselves,

but their presence also deters others from engaging in

violent crime. See John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime

(University of Chicago Press, 3d ed. 2010). County-level data

for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, the period in

which many concealed-carry laws took effect, shows annual

reductions in murder rates between 1.5 percent and 2.3

percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry law

was in effect, and the total economic benefit from reduced

crimes usually ranges between approximately $2 billion and $3

billion per year. Florenz Plassmann & John Whitley,

Confirming ``More Guns, Less Crime,'' 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1313

(2003). ``Violent crime falls after right-to-carry laws are

adopted, with bigger drops the longer the right-to-carry laws

are in effect.'' John R. Lott, Jr., What a Balancing Test

Will Show for Right-to-Carry Laws, 71 Md. L. Rev. 1205, 1212

(2012).

Our experience as attorneys general further reinforces this

data. Law-abiding individuals who choose to exercise their

constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense

promote public safety. Our states have chosen to respect the

rights of residents and non-residents alike to carry arms for

their defense, and we ask Congress to protect the same rights

of our law-abiding residents as they travel throughout the

United States.

States should not be able to deny citizens of other States

the basic constitutional right to self-defense. We thus urge

Congress to enact legislation such as the Constitutional

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (S. 446) or the

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38). These

bills aim to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to

carry a concealed handgun. They do not allow for carrying

firearms by felons, those involuntarily committed to mental

health facilities, and other persons prohibited by federal

law from possessing or receiving firearms. And these bills

would not prevent States from allowing governmental and

private entities to preclude concealed carry on their own

property.

As the Supreme Court held in McDonald, it is

``unmistakably'' true that ``the Second Amendment right to

keep and bear arms'' is ``fundamental to our scheme of

ordered liberty'' and ``deeply rooted in this Nation's

history and tradition.'' McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767-68.

Congress should act to safeguard and implement this deeply

rooted right for those traveling across state lines.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this legislation.

As the chief legal and law enforcement officers of our

respective States, we urge Congress to pass this important

legislation implementing one of the most basic American

freedoms, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Very truly yours,

Joshua D. Hawley, Missouri Attorney General; Steve

Marshall, Alabama Attorney General; Mark Brnovich, Arizona

Attorney General; Leslie Rutledge, Arkansas Attorney General;

Pamela Jo Bondi, Florida Attorney General; Chris Carr,

Georgia Attorney General; Lawrence Wasden, Idaho Attorney

General; Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Indiana Attorney General; Derek

Schmidt, Kansas Attorney General; Jeff Landry, Louisiana

Attorney General; Bill Schuette, Michigan Attorney General;

Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General.

Doug Peterson, Nebraska Attorney General; Adam Paul Laxalt,

Nevada Attorney General; Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota

Attorney General; Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General; Alan

Wilson, South Carolina Attorney General; Marty J. Jackley,

South Dakota Attorney General; Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney

General; Sean Reyes, Utah Attorney General; Patrick Morrisey,

West Virginia Attorney General; Brad D. Schimel, Wisconsin

Attorney General; Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to include in the Record two articles, one from Tennessee and one from Florida, in which concealed carry permit holders stopped dead in their tracks people who were going to commit murder.

[From www.wsmv.com, Oct. 8, 2017]

Usher Being Called ``Hero'' for Helping to Stop Antioch Church Shooter

(By Edward Burch)

Antioch, TN.--Robert Caleb Engle is being hailed as a hero

after helping to stop the accused gunman during the shooting

at Burnette Chapel Church of Christ in Antioch on Sunday.

According to police and witnesses at the scene, Engle, who

is an usher at the church, confronted the accused shooter,

Emanuel Kidega Samson. Engle was then pistol-whipped by

Samson. The two got into a scuffle before Samson shot himself

in the chest.

Engle, who has a carry permit, went out to his car to get a

gun, despite suffering a head injury.

Engle then went back inside the church to confront Samson

and held him at gunpoint until authorities arrived.

Engle, 22, declined an on-camera interview but did send a

statement.

When complimented about his heroism, Engle said, ``I do not

want to be labeled a hero. The real heroes are the police,

first responders, medical staff and doctors who have helped

me and everyone affected.''

``I've been going to this church my whole life,'' Engle

said ``I would have never, ever thought something like this

would have happened.''

``(He's) just an outstanding young man, even before

today,'' said Tammy Adcock, one of Engle's neighbors. ``Today

just proved his character.''

Engle also asked for prayers for not just the victims, but

for the shooter and the shooter's family.

``They are hurting as well,'' Engle said.

Engle and 64-year-old Catherine Dickerson were taken to

Skyline Medical Center with non-life-threatening injuries.

Both Engle and Dickerson have since been released from the

hospital.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out that the attorney general of the State of Texas has signed a letter, along with 22 other State attorneys general, in support of this legislation and pointing out that authorized permit holders to carry across State lines will not result in an increased risk of crime. Further, strong evidence indicates that concealed carry permit holders actually deter and reduce crime.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), who is the lead Democratic cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) for the purpose of closing the argument.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, with this motion to recommit, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying in vain to hamper the passage of this important legislation. H.R. 38 seeks to allow law- abiding citizens the ability to exercise their Second Amendment right when they cross State lines.

The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Further, the Court concluded that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation, and that central to this right is the ``inherent right of self-defense.''

Additionally, in McDonnell v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of an individual to ``keep and bear arms,'' as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment against the States.

An individual's Second Amendment right is no different than the First Amendment's protections on speech and free exercise of religious expression and the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure or the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Can you imagine my colleagues' outcries if any of the aforementioned rights stopped at their State's borders? Believe me, I can. They would be loud and boisterous about it, and justifiably so. Despite that fact, here they are trying to derail a bill that affords the Second Amendment the same respect.

Now, this motion to recommit attempts to extend the law, the Federal law, which already bars people from having firearms if they have been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor domestic violence crimes, by saying any violent crime be covered. And they define violent crime by saying it means ``any offense that involves injury or the threat of injury to the person of another.''

Well, in my State of Virginia and in most other States, it is up to the police officer in a traffic accident, if you rear-end somebody and you injure them, whether or not you are simply charged with a traffic offense or you are charged with a criminal offense. That should not be the basis of denying somebody their Second Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit and support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that the problems that my good friend just mentioned on the floor can be solved by real, sensible gun safety legislation. Unfortunately, H.R. 38 is not that, and it is not that because it has ignored the pleas of law enforcement, and it has ignored the rational addition of amendments that would save lives.

H.R. 38 is dangerous, it is reckless, and it is secretly packaged as a fix to gun violence, but, instead, it is laced with lethal elements of catastrophic proportion.

Then, in the midnight hour, it matches the NICS Fix, dealing with the background checks, with the concealed carry reciprocity. That is patently unfair, Mr. Speaker.

Then it would not allow reasonable amendments, exposing victims of domestic violence, an amendment that I had, it will expose them, victims of domestic violence, to stalkers, and those who have been involved in domestic violence to gun violence or death.

It will entice those who perpetrate hate crimes. It will add to the current alarming death rate. Unfortunately, where we could have fixed the NICS, it does not do that.

556 women have been murdered this year alone by intimate partners with firearms. My amendment would have made this bill safer on the concealed carry bill. Didn't want to have it. Fourteen other sensible amendments were blocked.

4.5 million American women alive today have been threatened by abusers.

Hate crimes, those worshippers in Charleston, South Carolina, were killed by a person who came there with hate. My amendment dealing with not allowing someone convicted of a hate crime--even though they say that that is the Federal law, why not have it in this underlying bill where so many people are killed?

Let me give you an example. Under the Brady Campaign, 114,994 Americans are killed by guns. They include those in Las Vegas; they include those at the Pulse nightclub; in Charleston; those who marched in Charlottesville, with all the violence that they had; and of course, Sandy Hook. Seventeen thousand children are gunned down by guns.

The laws of different States, 12 States, have an open carry law with no rules. That means that if you are in Washington, D.C., where heads of state and other dignitaries come, then recklessly someone can come on the streets.

Do we even listen to police officers? The Major Chiefs Association has indicated that they are opposed to H.R. 38 because it will require those making legitimate legal stops as law enforcement officers, seeking to come home to their families, being subjected to individuals whose documents they may not know are credible, or whether they are fraudulent or whether, in fact, these individuals legitimately should have a gun.

I can't understand why this is not understood. So let me just say that it is usually understood that we respect the constitutionality of States. This is a bad bill. It ignores sovereignty, and we should vote it down because too many people are murdered by guns without safety regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 38, the ``Concealed to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017''.

I oppose the bill for the following reasons:

H.R. 38 is dangerous, reckless and secretly packaged as a fix to gun violence, but instead, is laced with lethal elements of catastrophic proportion.

It will expose victims of domestic violence or stalking to gun violence or death.

It will entice those who perpetrate hate crimes.

It will add to the current alarming death rate.

The majority has elected to combine this dangerous measure with a more sensible and bipartisan measure, the Fix NICS Act, which we all supported as a stand-alone bill at markup.

This trickery tactic is both disappointing and deadly, of which, neither approach is welcome, for this reckless effort will negate any protections offered by the Fix NICS Act.

My Amendments would have remedied these glaring defects in H.R. 38, which is a recipe for disaster because it authorizes anyone who is allowed by one state to carry a concealed handgun to do so in any other state, even if other states have higher standards than the state where permit was granted.

This bill would endanger many more lives when dealing with domestic partners by exposing victims to gun violence.

Approximately, 556 women have been murdered this year alone by intimate partners with firearms, as statistics show that guns are the weapon of choice for domestic violence homicides.

My domestic violence amendment is an important public safety measure. Had it been made in order, it would have provided that States not be required to allow an individual to carry where such person is convicted of an offense of domestic violence or stalking as defined under the law.

Despite this sensible measure, my amendments along with 14 other germane democratic amendments were all blocked by the majority.

A 2016 meta-analysis found that approximately 4.5 million American women alive today have been threatened by abusers with firearms; of those, one million had either been shot or shot at by their abusers.

Stalking is also a strong indicator of lethality, with one study of female murder victims in ten cities finding that 76% of women who were murdered by an intimate partner were stalked the previous year.

My second amendment would have prohibited any person convicted of a hate crime, as defined under section 249 of title 18 United States Code, or any substantially similar offense under the law of any State, from carrying under this bill.

We all remember the vicious church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina where a white supremacist opened fire in a historic black church, killing nine people, including a pastor, during a prayer meeting.

Again, recently, in Charlottesville, VA, white nationalists invoked violence during a march by plowing a car into a group of anti- protesters, killing 32 year old Heather Heyer of Charlottesville.

This event prompted Attorney General Sessions to call the fatal attack ``domestic terrorism'' and said you can be sure we will charge and advance the investigation toward the most serious of charges that can be brought.

Imagine if this killer from Ohio was allowed to cross state lines freely at that time under this bill with a gun; the additional loss of life on that day could have been catastrophic.

New analysis of National Crime Victimization Survey data by the Center for American Progress reveals that between 2010 and 2014, roughly 43,000 hate crimes were committed in the United States that involved the use or threat of a gun.

Under federal law and the law in most states, individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes remain free to buy and possess guns. And now, under this bill, they can take their guns with them to inflict mayhem beyond their home states.

Hate-motivated individuals such as violent extremists and hate criminals often use guns as a tool to terrorize, threaten and intimidate members of historically vulnerable or marginalized communities. My amendment therefore, was a sensible and practical measure.

Mass shootings and carnage-filled classrooms, churches, workplace, concerts and clubs should not be the new normal because Congress can and should do better.

Every day on average, 315 people are shot, of which 93 die from gun violence, daily. And of the 315 shot, 46 are children and teens between the age of 0-19 and at least 7 of our children die daily from gun violence.

Every year on average, 114,994 people are shot, of which 33,880 people die from gun violence and of those shot, 17,012 of those victims are children and teens. Therefore, we lose at least 2,647 of our children a year to senseless gun violence.

These numbers are alarming and we should be devoting our efforts to saving lives, not opening up the flood gate to more carnage by snuffing innocent lives in passing H.R. 38.

This bill will amplify tragedies such as Sandy Hook Elementary, Charleston, SC, Florida's Pulse night club, San Bernardino, Las Vegas bump stocks killings, Texas recent church massacre, and the countless lives lost on our streets across this country daily.

Although the NRA argues that the United States is a dangerous place and that owning and carrying a gun is the only way to protect oneself and one's family, there are over 30,000 dead.

Removing safeguards intended to protect the public against potential harm or deadly force by private individuals jeopardizes universally recognized human rights--including the right to life.

H.R. 38 prohibits Congress' ability to address gun violence in a constructive and realistic manner? Adding more guns to our streets and loosening existing laws is extremely dangerous and counterproductive to ensuring public safety.

Disguising the danger in this bill, by wrapping it in the cloth of H.R. 4477, a more sensible measure, does not negate the toxicity level of H.R. 38.

In response to the TX recent church shooting, my amendment strengthened H.R. 4477 by requiring DoD to conduct a more comprehensive review of the procedures used by each branch of the Armed Forces to ensure that the Department is in substantial compliance with the DoD instruction 5505.11 entitled, ``Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submission Requirements'', dated December 1, 1998. But again, these amendments were blocked.

Unlike H.R. 4477, the Fix NICS Act, a bipartisan measure and good first step, which aims to improve key elements in the submission of information by federal and state agencies to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and which I supported, H.R. 38 as is and combined is lethal.

For the reasons stated above, I oppose this Rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article by Mark Kelly entitled ``Good Guys With Guns Can Be Dangerous, Too. Don't Gut Conceal Carry Laws. Why is Congress about to Vote to Loosen Gun Laws Again;'' a letter from Major Cities Chiefs Association opposing H.R. 38; a letter from the chief of police from the City of Houston; and, finally, a report from the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence.

`Good Guys With Guns' Can Be Dangerous, Too. Don't Gut Concealed Carry

Laws

why is congress about to vote to loosen gun laws again?

(By Mark Kelly)

That day in Tucson, amid a gun tragedy, one of the heroes

almost got shot.

It was Saturday, Jan. 8, 2011, and a mentally ill young man

who'd gotten his hand on a gun opened fire on my wife, then-

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), and her constituents at an

event in a Safeway parking lot. He shot my wife in the head

at close range, injured 12 others and took the lives of six

people. One victim was a 9-year-old girl.

After Gabby's would-be assassin dropped the full magazine

as he sought to reload his gun and continue his rampage,

people tackled him, kicked his gun away, subdued him as they

waited for law enforcement to arrive and brought an end to

the chaos. They were heroes.

The chaos nearly continued, though. Because the man who

murdered those innocent people wasn't the only one there with

a loaded, concealed gun.

Joe Zamudio was shopping at a drugstore nearby when he

heard the shots. Allowed to carry a concealed weapon under

Arizona law, Zamudio recognized the sound of gunfire and

rushed to the scene with his gun in his jacket pocket, his

hand on his weapon and ready to fire. But then Zamudio--a

good guy trying to do the right thing--almost shot another

good guy.

As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun.

Zamudio confronted him: ``Drop it, drop it!'' he yelled.

But that man with a gun was a good guy, too. He was one of

the heroes who had wrestled the shooter to the ground. And he

was moments away from being shot for the wrong reason.

To his credit, Zamudio held his fire--just barely. As he

recounted to reporters later, ``It was a matter of seconds. .

. . I was really lucky. . . . I've never been in the military

or had any professional training. I just reacted.''

The situation that played out in the Safeway parking lot

that day shows the potential for tragedy and bloodshed when

untrained people carrying loaded guns react to a crisis. Even

with the best intentions, an armed person without the

extensive firearms training that is required to respond under

pressure in a crisis will risk making the situation worse,

not better.

But this week, as we approach the seventh anniversary of

the tragedy in Tucson and the fifth anniversary of the

tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School--and after two of the

five deadliest mass shootings in modern history happened in

the last two months--Congress is working hard to pass one of

the big-ticket items on the National Rifle Association's

wishlist, a bill that weakens our gun laws and poses serious

threats to public safety.

The House of Representatives is on the verge of voting to

allow people permitted to carry concealed weapons to carry

them into any other state regardless of what that state's law

on such guns is. That would make it harder for law

enforcement to do their job and allow all permit holders,

even if they don't have a single shred of training, to carry

loaded, hidden guns on every street in our country.

Right now, each state has the right to determine the extent

to which it will recognize the concealed carry laws of other

states. Some states have strong laws, preventing dangerous

people like domestic abusers and convicted stalkers from

obtaining concealed carry permits and requiring training and

a thorough evaluation as part of the process. In other

states, concealed carry laws have much lower standards. The

12 states with the weakest laws, permitless carry states, do

not even require a permit. That means a resident of those

states may carry loaded, concealed guns in public spaces

without ever having passed a background check.

The bill before Congress would allow people who have a

permit issued by any state--including permitless carry

states--to carry loaded, concealed handguns in any other

state that allows concealed carry, even though they might not

meet local public safety standards. This would mean an 18-

year-old high school student from West Virginia could legally

carry a concealed firearm in New York City, where residents

must be 21 to even own a handgun.

And what would it mean for law enforcement? Nothing good.

The bill would impose a threat of personal litigation on all

law enforcement officers by allowing anyone whose ability to

carry a concealed gun is mistakenly questioned by law

enforcement to personally sue the officer. This bill would

also effectively require them to be an expert on nationwide

gun laws as they work to determine if it's legal for someone

from out of state to be carrying a gun in whatever state they

might be visiting. Just as concerning, it will mean that more

law enforcement officers will have to confront more people

with guns. And think back to the tragedy in Tucson: When law

enforcement officers arrive at a crime scene where multiple

people are holding guns, how do they even know who the good

guy is?

We need politicians to show courage and listen to the

American people, who want stronger laws to make them safer,

not giveaways to gun lobbyists that threaten the safety of

our communities. And that's exactly what this irresponsible

bill would do.

As members of Congress consider this bill, they have to ask

themselves if they want to be remembered as voting to help

the Washington gun lobby instead of supporting law

enforcement and public safety. And they should know that

their constituents are watching their decision closely.

Mr. President, 70 years ago this May, the Senate Appropriations Committee sent to the full Senate a constitutional amendment to require a balanced Federal budget. It had been proposed by Senator Millard Tydings, a Democrat from Maryland. In its report, the committee said this: ``In no other way except by an amendment to the Constitution can Congress be compelled to balance its budget in peacetime.''

Seven decades of experience proved that the Appropriations Committee was right, and we have never been in a more serious, perilous situation than we are today.

Two essential facts compel me once again to introduce a constitutional amendment to require fiscal responsibility: the gravity of the national debt crisis and the fact that neither willpower nor legislation will solve it.

The greatest challenge in describing the gravity of the national debt crisis is deciding how much of the bad news to present at one time. During the 2008 Presidential campaign, one of the candidates criticized the outgoing President for adding $4 trillion to the national debt. That increase, Barack Obama said, was not only irresponsible but ``unpatriotic.'' The national debt on inauguration day 2009 was $10.6 trillion, and on inauguration day 2017 it was $19.9 trillion. If a $4 trillion increase was irresponsible and unpatriotic, what words describe a $9.3 trillion increase?

President Obama won the 2008 election with the Government Accountability Office warning that the Nation's long-term fiscal outlook was unsustainable. In its January 2017 assessment of the Nation's fiscal health, GAO reports that the national debt as a share of GDP in 2016 was 75 percent higher than the average since World War II. As it had been before, GAO concluded that ``the federal government's fiscal path is unsustainable.''

One way to understand the gravity of the national debt is to compare it to the size of the economy, or the gross domestic product. In other words, we can compare what we owe to our ability to pay. When President Obama took office, the national debt was 82 percent of GDP and is now 105 percent of GDP today. Some economists prefer to evaluate the national debt as a percentage of tax revenue; that is, by comparing what we owe to what we earn. The national debt rose from approximately 350 percent of Federal revenue when President Obama took office to 600 percent of Federal revenue today.

But neither numbers nor percentages tell the whole story because the national debt crisis is becoming not only a bigger crisis but a different kind of crisis. During the last several years of skyrocketing national debt, the interest rate on that debt has been nearly zero. If interest rates had been at the historical average, annual interest costs would be more than twice what they are today and on their way to consuming more than half of all Federal revenue. And now interest rates are starting to creep up. The Concord Coalition and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget both anticipate that over the next decade, interest payments on the national debt alone will approach $1 trillion per year. That is interest payments. In other words, as GAO found in its new fiscal report, the growing national debt now means that the rising cost of servicing that debt becomes one of the drivers of the growing debt itself. This is becoming what one study calls a self- propelling crisis.

A national debt of this magnitude dampens the economic growth necessary to minimize borrowing to fund the government, and rising interest costs for such a monstrous debt add to the debt on which more interest must then be paid. Last month, for instance, the Treasury Department echoed this point in its financial report with the U.S. Government for fiscal year 2016. The Treasury Department concluded:

The debt-to-GDP ratio rises at an accelerating rate despite

primary deficits that flatten out because higher levels of

debt lead to higher net interest expenditures, and higher net

interest expenditures lead to

higher debt. The continuous rise of the debt-to-GDP ratio . .

. indicates that current policy is unsustainable.

We can also consider the legislative budget and economic outlook from the Congressional Budget Office. I want to highlight a few things that stood out to me.

First, annual budget deficits are on their way back up after 6 years of decline. In fact, the budget deficit for fiscal year 2016 will be one-third larger than in 2015.

Second, CBO projects that the national debt will rise by nearly $10 trillion over the next decade. Looking beyond the next decade, CBO says that under current law, the national debt will explode to more than 150 percent of GDP--by far the highest level in American history.

Third, CBO also says that interest on the national debt is itself an increasingly forceful engine driving the debt even higher. Interest payments on the national debt are increasing nearly twice as fast as spending on Social Security and Medicare. Just last month, CBO Director Keith Hall said that over the next 10 years, interest payments are expected to triple in nominal terms and double relative to GDP.

Fourth, CBO repeated some of the serious negative consequences of this national debt for the budget, the economy, and the Nation. In addition to substantially higher interest payments, these include lower productivity and wages, less flexibility by lawmakers to respond to fiscal challenges, and increased likelihood of a fiscal crisis.

In addition to these problems, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen and experts from the Heritage Foundation to the Brookings Institution warn that the national debt crisis is a serious threat to national security.

Economists tell us that national debt above 90 percent of GDP for a sustained period of time will lead to substantially slower economic growth and higher interest rates. The United States is now in the longest period in its history with the national debt above that toxic 90-percent level. Not surprisingly, since the recession ended in June 2009, the national debt has grown more than twice as fast and GDP has grown less than half as fast as during the comparable period after previous recessions.

It is no wonder to me and to many others that more than two-thirds of Americans say that their concern over the national debt is growing and more than three-quarters of Americans say that the national debt should be among Congress's top three priorities. The national debt was once such a top priority. In fact, America's Founders were so determined to avoid debt that their commitment to fiscal balance was often called our unwritten fiscal constitution. President George Washington, for example, told Congress that the regular redemption of the public debt was the most urgent fiscal priority. That was George Washington. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1798 that if he could add a single amendment to the Constitution, it would prohibit the Federal Government from borrowing. That commitment, of course, is long gone. The Federal budget has been balanced in only a dozen of the last 80 years. And, as I said earlier, we are in the longest period in American history with a debt above 90 percent of GDP.

As its fiscal willpower failed, Congress has also tried to address the debt crisis by legislation. The first bill requiring a balanced budget was introduced in 1934 when the national debt was 40 percent of GDP. Fifty years later, Congress enacted the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. Since then, we have enacted multiple budget control acts and budget enforcement acts, only to see the national debt climb from 42 percent of GDP in 1985 to 105 percent of GDP today.

Good intentions will not balance the Nation's checkbook. Statutes that Congress can change or ignore will not keep our fiscal house in order. Neither willpower nor legislation will tackle the national debt crisis. Pretending otherwise is the fiscal equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns.

All the evidence--every bit of it--proves true the conclusion drawn by the Appropriations Committee 70 years ago. In no other way except by amendment to the Constitution can Congress be compelled to balanced its budget in peacetime. We have, as lawyers put it, exhausted our other remedies for this crisis. This would be a very different country--a freer and more prosperous country--if Congress had already proposed the only solution that exists, a constitutional amendment which requires fiscal responsibility.

The first balanced budget amendment was introduced in the House of Representatives in 1936. As you can see, the national debt as a percentage of GDP has been going up by leaps and bounds. I introduced my first balanced budget amendment in June of 1979, during my first term in the Senate when the national debt was 32 percent of GDP. That share of GDP doubled by 1997 when the Senate came within one vote of passing a balanced budget amendment that I introduced--one vote. It rose to 95 percent when the Senate last voted on a balanced budget amendment in 2011 and is 105 percent of GDP today.

Since this crisis is already so grave and getting worse, since the only way to tackle it is through the Constitution, we should propose a balanced budget amendment and let the American people decide whether to take this step. After all, Congress cannot amend the Constitution. A requirement that Congress keep its fiscal house in order cannot become part of the Constitution until that is approved by three-quarters of the States.

Congress, however, is not the only way to propose constitutional amendments. Article V of the Constitution also allows the States to apply for a convention to propose constitutional amendments. Concerned citizens have been working since the mid-1970s to reach the two-thirds threshold for calling such a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment and are only six States away from that goal. Since Congress has never called an article V convention, questions remain unresolved and theories untested regarding that method of proposing an amendment. I can assure my colleagues, however, that Congress's continued failure to propose a balanced budget--and a balanced budget amendment at that-- guarantees that our fellow citizens will continue working to force that course upon us.

There are two facts that we must face: the gravity of the nation's debt crisis and the failure to address it by willpower or legislation. Perhaps some of my colleagues believe that the Congressional Budget Office is wrong in its disturbing projections and dire warnings; that the Government Accountability Office is mistaken and the fiscal path we are on is sustainable after all; that the Treasury Department is wrong about the spiral of increased debt and growing interest payments--some people feel that way; that the Concord Coalition and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget are wrong about how national debt interest payments will continue to grow and add to the debt; and that economists are wrong to warn about the impact of sustained national debt of this magnitude.

If my colleagues are convinced that everyone else is wrong and our fiscal future is just fine after all, then they should say so and then try to make that case to the American people. Even they will not do that because they know they are wrong, yet we can't seem to get them to do what is right. I, for one, think that would be a very tough sell for them to make. Americans have been polled about this issue dozens of times over the years by major polling firms and national news organizations. Three-quarters of Americans supported a balanced budget amendment in 1976, and three-quarters support it today.

Perhaps all of these polls over the last 40 years are wrong. Perhaps the American people are content watching their national debt swallow the economy. Perhaps our fellow citizens are actually OK with slower economic growth, a rising threat to national security, the greater likelihood of a fiscal crisis, and an unsustainable path to fiscal disaster. If that is what the American people actually believe, then they certainly are inclined to ratify a balanced budget amendment.

The real reason Members of Congress refuse to give the American people this choice is that they know what the American people will say. I say with respect, but as strongly as I can, that this is not a legitimate basis for refusing to propose a balanced budget

amendment. In our system of government, as Founder James Wilson once put it, the people are the masters of government. They alone have authority to set rules for government. This choice must be theirs, not ours.

Here is the heart of the matter. First, the national debt crisis poses a significant and growing threat to the economic and national security of this country. In fact, we have never been in such an extended, perilous period as we are right now. Second, Congress has tried and failed to address this crisis by either willpower or legislation and will actually do so only if the Constitution requires it. Third, the decision of whether to use the Constitution to require fiscal responsibility belongs to the American people, not to Congress.

We can either take the responsibility we were elected for and propose a balanced budget amendment or the American people may do it for us. I hope we have the guts to do what is right. Our very country is hanging in the balance. The rest of the world depends on the United States and the strong principles of the United States, and we need to do what is right.

I think it is time for us to wake up and realize this is the Congress that can make the difference. After all these years of impropriety and excessive spending, we can do it. We can live within certain constraints. It may take a period of time to wind this down, but we can do it. This amendment does provide for some ways of getting there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. This bill would not protect us from gun violence, but it would make us far less safe.

Under current law, each State makes its own determination about who may carry a concealed firearm in public, including deciding which other States' concealed carry permits to recognize. This bill would eviscerate the core public safety determinations that each State makes concerning the concealed carrying of guns in public based on the unique circumstances of each State and the desires of its citizens. In fact, the standards and requirements adopted in the States vary dramatically:

Thirty-one States and D.C. require gun safety training to carry concealed guns in public, and 21 of those States require live-fire training; 27 States and the District of Columbia prohibit individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of violence from concealed carry; 28 States and D.C. prohibit convicted stalkers from carrying concealed guns; 34 States and D.C. prohibit those under 21 years of age from carrying concealed guns. Many States prohibit gun possession and concealed carry by abusive dating partners, exceeding Federal protections against abusive spouses.

All of these States would have their carefully considered laws governing concealed carry overridden by this bill.

The obvious solution to the varying State laws is to continue to do what is currently done by many States, which is to choose which other State permits they will recognize. Some States, including my State of New York, have chosen not to recognize permits issued by any other State. Most States, however, have chosen to recognize permits from at least some other States, basing the choice on the strength and standards employed by the other States.

We should not disregard these determinations, which is what this bill would do. Instead, this bill would say that every State must honor the concealed carry permit of every other State. About 10 States don't have any requirements and issue a concealed carry permit upon request to anyone.

What this bill would do, in effect, is to say that if New York or Illinois have strict requirements for concealed carry, if someone comes in from a State that doesn't, they have to let that person have concealed carry in their State. In effect, it uses the power of the Federal Government to import the laws of one State and make them enforceable in the other State.

In addition, I am deeply disappointed that the version of this bill before us today includes the bipartisan Fix NICS Act, a measure that should be enacted as a stand-alone bill without delay, and that was reported as a separate bill by the Judiciary Committee.

That bill would take steps to address shortcomings with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or what we often call the

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. JACKSON Lee asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the distinguished chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), who is the chairman of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is advanced I am not sure in the name of what, but what it is going to do is make us less safe and to overrule all our States.

Under this bill, someone who lives in New York could go to another State--doesn't even have to go to another State; just apply to the other State, get a concealed carry permit from that State, never set foot in that State, and then use it in New York; thus, overriding New York's laws.

We have heard it said that this bill is necessary to protect the Second Amendment constitutional rights of gun owners. But the fact is, there is no Second Amendment constitutional right for concealed carry.

In the District of Columbia v. Heller case in which the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment established a personal right, Justice Scalia's

opinion held that the Second Amendment was not unlimited, a variety of gun regulations were entirely consistent with the Constitution, and he said:

The majority of American courts to consider the question

have held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons

were lawful under the Second Amendment for State analogues.

So the Second Amendment argument is simply wrong or disingenuous.

But let me say also that we are living in an epidemic of gun violence. 33,000 Americans are killed every year, and 30,000 more every year. No other country approaches this. No country--other than those at war--in peacetime has more than 300 or 400, or even 100 or 72, and we have 33,000. It is not because of mental illness. It is because of the presence of large numbers of gun.

A 2017 Stanford University study found a direct correlation with the most permissive concealed carry laws and violent crime. General studies have shown a direct correlation of the presence of the number of guns and murder rates by guns.

So this is a bill that is a death sentence for many Americans. That is what this bill is. It is a death sentence without trial for many Americans by increasing the danger of guns by overruling States that fear and that we don't want concealed weapons on the New York City subway or the Chicago metro or other places of great concentrations of people.

But no, we, in our wisdom, are going to say the States with the least restrictive, perhaps most rural, maybe sensible restrictions for them, will impose those restrictions on other States.

It is wrong. It is a death sentence for many Americans. It ought not pass.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this dangerous bill. I asked my local law enforcement what they thought of folks from out of State who don't meet our local requirements coming into our communities with loaded concealed firearms. These are the folks who are on the front lines of fighting gun violence, and we should listen to what they have to say.

Our Sonoma County sheriff opposes this bill and says it would negatively affect our community and put citizens and his deputies in greater danger.

The chief of police from my hometown in St. Helena said: As a lifelong proponent of the ability to own, possess, and carry firearms within the provisions of the law, I am wholeheartedly against H.R. 38.

Like many of us, he asks: How long will it take before someone who can't meet the legal requirements to concealed carry in California goes to some other State with little or no standards and gets a permit from that State?

Our chief of police in Martinez opposes this bill and says that it is a race to the bottom.

Overwhelmingly, law enforcement in my district strongly oppose this bill. Moreover, there is a reason no major law enforcement organizations have come out in support of this bill. It is dangerous, and it is unnecessary.

I think my colleagues should stand with law enforcement--the people that keep us and our families safe--and oppose this bill. Every example that was given from my friends across the aisle doesn't pertain to this bill. They talk about, in their States, concealed carry. Texas was the last one. In Texas, there is a standard you have to meet to get a concealed carry permit.

If this bill passes, you erase that standard. Somebody from out of State who is a violent criminal can come in with a loaded concealed firearm in the State of Texas. Someone who is a criminal in the State of Texas, where there are rules, can go to another State, get a concealed carry permit, and bring that loaded, concealed firearm into the State of Texas. This is bad policy, and it should be opposed.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill nor send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, next week will be the fifth anniversary of the hideous mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary, where 20 kids and six educators were slaughtered in their classroom.

This year, we have witnessed two of the worst mass shootings in recent American history: in Las Vegas, Nevada, and in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Every day more than 30 people are killed by someone using a gun. This should be a call to action for everyone to work together to help prevent gun violence. That is why 90 percent of Americans support strengthening our gun laws, not weakening them.

Let's be clear about what this Congress is going to do today. Instead of taking serious action on bump stocks or expanding background checks, the majority party is undermining the very laws that work to prevent gun violence.

For example, some States allow people who have been convicted of some violent crimes to carry a loaded, concealed firearm.

Thirty States and the District of Columbia currently deny permits to people convicted of those violent crimes, such as assault and battery, threatening, or crimes committed with a weapon. So if you are from any of these States--Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, or the District of Columbia--a vote for this underlying bill is a vote to undermine your own State gun violence prevention policy, because this bill says that, even if your State prohibits its own residents who have been convicted of certain violent crimes, you can't prohibit someone from another State with the same criminal record from carrying a loaded, concealed firearm if their State allows it.

This motion to recommit would state that a person who has been convicted of a violent crime within the preceding 3 years may not possess or carry a concealed handgun in a State that prohibits a person from doing so on the basis of a conviction for that very same offense. This would be people convicted of crimes such as resisting arrest, assault, permitting sexual abuse of a minor, aggravated assault, or violation of a criminal sexual assault protection order--all violent crimes.

An ``aye'' vote on this motion to recommit is a pro-States' rights, pro-Second Amendment, and anticriminal vote.

I am a gun owner. I have been all of my life. I am not opposed to concealed carry, but I am opposed to violent criminals having guns, and Members should be, too.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this motion to recommit; and if they vote against it, they are voting to allow violent criminals, convicted criminals, to carry loaded, concealed firearms in their community, in their State, and in their district. That is wrong. We should prohibit that from happening.

It is a real easy fix. It could have been fixed in committee. It could have been fixed in committee. They could have taken care of the concerns that they have with the restrictions on concealed carry, and they could have stopped criminals, convicted criminals, from carrying loaded, concealed firearms. But the committee didn't do it.

We have a chance now. It is the last chance to do it before this bill comes to a vote. I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to vote for this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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