Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Clarifying Certain Myths Regarding the Gun Control Debate
and Discussion of Proposed Legislation
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
Mr. President, the problem of gun violence is real, but too many of the proposed responses to this problem would not only represent unwise policy, but would also violate a fundamental constitutional right: the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
What does this mean to you and me as Americans?
It means that the right to bear arms falls into the same category as our other most closely held individual rights: the right to free speech, the right to freedom of religion, and the right to due process under the law.
It should be emphasized that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual, fundamental constitutional right. With that firm foundation, I want to straighten out some rampant misinformation that is used to advocate for stricter gun control.
Correcting these myths is essential so that the issue can be properly deliberated and addressed. Unfortunately, many of these myths were reiterated over the past two weeks during primetime, nationwide presidential media appearances.
First, let’s debunk the quote “Gun Show Loophole.” Were you to click on your TV, pick up a newspaper, or read certain mailers, you would be left with the impression that if you buy a firearm at a gun show you are not subject to a background check.
In fact, all gun show purchases made from commercial gun dealers require a background check. These commercial gun dealers, or federal firearms licensees as the law refers to them, typically make up the majority of the gun vendors at gun shows. So, let’s be clear, if someone goes to a gun show and purchases a firearm from a commercial gun dealer, they are subject to a background check, period.
So then, who are these people who are not subject to a background check? If you are an individual and you want to sell your gun to another individual, you may do so, assuming you don’t know or have reasonable cause to believe that such person is prohibited from owning a gun. The government does not dictate where this sale takes place. You can sell your hunting rifle to your neighbor’s daughter and you can make that sale in your home, driveway, or a parking lot. You can also make this sale to another individual at a gun show. This is what is referred to as a peer-to-peer transaction; two adults engaged in a personal transaction.
Just as there is no background check required in your driveway, there generally is no background check required when that private, peer-to-peer sale happens to occur at a gun show. This is not a loophole in the pejorative sense of the word, this is an American lawfully selling their property to another without federal government involvement.
In this same vein, to hear the President discuss it, you would assume that these gun shows were lawless free-for-alls for felons to obtain their newest illegal weapon. In fact, local, state, and federal law enforcement are often present at gun shows, both in uniform and covertly in plain clothes. They monitor and intervene in suspected unlawful firearms sales such as straw purchasing, attempted purchases by prohibited individuals, and the attempted sale of illegal firearms.
As the Washington Times reported recently, law enforcement arrests at gun shows hit new highs last year. I recently attended a gun show in Iowa and there was a robust law enforcement presence.
Next, we have repeatedly been told by President Obama, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, that firearms purchased on the Internet don’t require a background check. I have seen media reports to the same effect. Once again, this is a blatant inaccuracy that needs correcting.
An individual cannot purchase a firearm directly over the Internet.
A gun purchaser can pay for a firearm over the Internet, but, if purchased from a firearms retailer, the firearm must then be sent to a brick and mortar location. When the purchaser picks up the gun, a background check is performed, and, assuming the purchaser passes the background check, he or she may obtain physical possession of the firearm.
In addition, an individual cannot lawfully purchase a firearm on the Internet from an individual who is in another state. Any inter-state sale of a firearm, even between two individuals online, must go through a gun store, who, after charging a fee, and running a background check on the purchaser, provides the purchaser with the firearm they bought from another individual on the Internet.
These are two clear instances where internet purchases require a background check. The one exception where a firearm can be lawfully purchased using the Internet, without a background check, is when two individuals, from the same state, establish the terms of a purchase over the Internet, but then meet in person to transfer the firearm. If the firearm is a rifle or a shotgun, a resident may use the U.S. Postal Service to mail a firearm, INTRA-state to another individual, but he may not do so if the item being purchased is a handgun. A handgun can only be mailed intra-state via a contract carrier.
As you can see, once you blow away the smoke and pull down the mirrors, the statement that there are no background checks on Internet purchases rings hollow.
Third, with great fanfare, President Obama has stated unequivocally that firearms enforcement has been a priority for his administration. This simply is not true either. The Obama administration chose to focus its criminal justice resources elsewhere. Federal firearms prosecutions are down at least 25 percent under this President. In addition, he suspended successful programs specifically designed to thwart firearms offenses.
Unfortunately, as has so often been the case with the Obama Administration, the rhetoric just does not match the action. As I have repeatedly called for, we need greater enforcement of the existing law, which simply has not happened under this administration.
Fourth, despite condemnation from both sides of the aisle and even from publications that regularly support increased gun control, like the LA Times, we have once again heard the President call for tying Americans’ fundamental Second Amendment right to the terrorist no-fly list.
As we now know, the no-fly list is actually multiple lists, generated in secret and controlled by executive branch bureaucrats. It is intended to thwart suspected terrorists from flying. Flying is not a constitutional right like the Second Amendment is. So, the people who are put on these lists are not given a chance to challenge their inclusion.
However, it is blatantly unconstitutional to deny a fundamental constitutional right without any type of due process such as notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The fact that the President continues to call for use of the no-fly list as it relates to a fundamental right calls into question his repeated assurances that he fully supports the Second Amendment. Given unprecedented executive actions regarding sanctuary cities and a refusal to enforce immigration laws as enacted by this body, we should not be surprised. But let me state unequivocally: using a secret document, which by its nature and purpose, will often be over inclusive or contain errors as a basis for denying Americans their Second Amendment right is clearly unconstitutional.
Fifth, on multiple occasions the Obama Administration has condemned semi-automatic weapons. Let’s get this straight right here and right now. As any gun owner knows, a semi-automatic firearm is simply a gun that shoots one round with each pull of the trigger. This encompasses the type of shotgun most often used for duck hunting and the type of rifle often used for target shooting. A semi-automatic firearm does not equate to the fabled assault weapon and is not a machine gun. We should be concerned when this Administration makes proposals on guns that fail to reflect knowledge of even elementary elements of their operation.
I have additional myths that need to be dispelled that I will submit and ask that they be made part of the record, but being mindful of my time, I now want to respond directly to one of President Obama’s challenges.
Let’s talk for a moment about bipartisan efforts regarding gun control.
Senator Durbin and I are working on a bill, which we will introduce shortly, that prohibits all aliens, with the exception of legal permanent residents, and those who fall under a sporting exception, from acquiring firearms. In addition, our bill re-institutes residency requirements for those non-citizens attempting to purchase a firearm. This bipartisan legislation closes actual loopholes, such as those that currently permit refugees or asylees, or those from visa waiver countries, to acquire firearms.
I look forward to the opportunity to work on this issue in a bipartisan manner, but if we are going to deliberate and debate the issue, we must clear up the misconceptions and avoid erroneous rhetoric.
I will end where I started. The Second Amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental right and any legislative or executive action must start and finish with recognition of this fact.
I yield the floor.
-30-