|
2005 Ron Paul Chapter 106
Not linked on Ron Paul’s Congressional website.
Congressional Record [.PDF]
Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act
20 october 2005
2005 Ron Paul 106:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, while I sympathize with the original objective of S. 397, the Protection
of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, I am
forced to oppose this legislation primarily because
of unconstitutional gun control amendments
added to the bill in the Senate.
2005 Ron Paul 106:2
As a firm believer in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and an
opponent of all Federal gun laws, I cannot
support a bill that imposes new, unconstitutional
gun controls on Americans. I believe
that the Second Amendment is one of the
foundations of our constitutional liberties. In
fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second
Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 1703), which
repeals misguided Federal gun control laws
such as the Brady Bill.
2005 Ron Paul 106:3
Senate amendments added two sections to S. 397 that impose unconstitutional controls
on American gun owners and sellers.
2005 Ron Paul 106:4
First, a section was added to the bill to outlaw any licensed gun importer, manufacturer,
or dealer from selling, delivering, or transferring
a handgun without a “secure gun storage
or safety device.” Each and any violation of
this requirement can result in a person being
fined up to $2,500 or having his license revoked.
This gun lock requirement amounts to
the imposition of a new Federal tax on each
handgun sale because gun buyers will be
forced to pay the cost of the “secure gun storage
or safety device” that is required with a
handgun, irrespective of if that device is desired.
Further, the severe penalties for noncompliance
— whether intentional or accidental
— add yet more weight to the crippling
regulations that hang over gun transactions in
the United States.
2005 Ron Paul 106:5
Second, a section was added to the bill to create draconian penalties for people who
possess “armor piercing” bullets. Just like the
Democratic Congress before it that passed the
“assault weapons” ban, the Republican Congress
is poised to give in to anti-gun rights
scare tactics by selectively banning bullets. Instead
of each gun owner being able to decide
what ammunition he uses in his gun, Federal
bureaucrats will make that decision. To recognize
the threat such regulation places on gun
owners, just consider that a gun without ammunition
is nothing more than an expensive
club. Regulating ammunition is the back door
path to gun regulation.
2005 Ron Paul 106:6
The “armor piercing” bullets restriction imposes a 15 years mandatory minimum sentence
for just carrying or possessing such bullets
— even without a gun — during or in “relation
to” a crime of violence or drug trafficking.
Given the wide scope of criminal laws and the
fact that people are on occasion accused of
crimes they did not commit, this provision
promises to discourage many non-violent, law-
abiding individuals from possessing ammunition
protected under the Second Amendment.
Further, it does not take much imagination to
see how such a provision could be used by an
anti-gun prosecutor in the prosecution of an
individual who used a gun in self defense, especially
considering that use of such bullets to
murder can result in a death sentence. In such
instances, a defendant who exercised self defense
may well accept a guilty plea bargain to
avoid the severe enhanced penalties imposed
under S. 397.
2005 Ron Paul 106:7
I am particularly disturbed that the House of Representatives’ leadership has taken the unusual
step of bringing S. 397 to the floor for
a vote without House members at least having
an opportunity to vote on removing the gun
control amendments. Instead of voting on a
bill that contains the new gun control provisions,
we should be considering H.R. 800, the
House version of S. 397 prior to its perversion
by gun control amendments. Notably, Gun
Owners of America has written to House
members to request that they oppose S. 397
and, instead, support H.R. 800. Last month, I
wrote to House Speaker DENNIS HASTERT, Majority
Leader TOM DELAY, and Committee on
the Judiciary Chairman JAMES SENSENBRENNER
of my opposition to these anti-gun
rights provisions in S. 397. While I am concerned
about some of the federalism implications
of H.R. 800, it is a far superior bill because
it neither requires gun locks nor restricts
gun owners’ ammunition choices.
2005 Ron Paul 106:8
With 258 sponsors and cosponsors, H.R. 800 would easily pass the House. The House
voting for H.R. 800 would allow the differences
between H.R. 800 and S. 397 to be reconciled
in conference committee. In conference, every
expectation would be that the new gun control
provisions would be stripped from the legislation
given that the original, unamended S. 397
had 62 Senate sponsors and cosponsors — a
filibuster proof majority — in the Senate.
2005 Ron Paul 106:9
I regret that, under the guise of helping gun owners, the House of Representatives is today
considering imposing new unconstitutional gun
controls. I, thus, must oppose S. 397.
| |
