committee to be on the record and to be understood as to whether or not we believe it is a proper function of the united states government to try to coerce or entice or control states to adopt red flag laws. i am unequivocally against red flag laws. they deprive amendments of their second amendment rights. they deprive americans of their fifth amendment rights to due process. many states have laws beyond their red flag laws where someone is not in a position to appropriately own a firearm. that can be dealt with. as there is this seemingly reflexive desire to adopt red flag laws, including in florida, i would suggest that this committee take a position against them. in the sunshine state, nearly 6000 people have been subject to orders as a result of red flag laws. i do not view that as a success. i view that as something that would cause grave, grave concern. increasingly, we see that these red flag laws have been used in contentious divorces where you have one person trying to deprive another person of their safety and security and liberty and second amendment rights in order to gain leverage in a marital dispute, and i find that challenging. our second amendment rights should not be subject to that kind of deprivation and review by a court in an adversarial proceeding, an adversarial proceeding that justice would require, and i would yield to the gentleman from kentucky. >> red flag laws are bad. they are not just harmful. they are unnecessary. in all 50 states, there are already laws on the books. in florida, it is the baker act. in california, it is 5150. it allows someone to be committed to a mental institution or have their firearms taken away, but the difference between those existing laws and the new laws is the existing laws have due process. you are entitled to an attorney. you will know when the hearing is happening. if you cannot afford an attorney, they will give you an attorney, and there is a mental health expert required to be involved. this is absent of any of the red flag laws. they don't provide you with a lawyer if you can't afford one, so many people have to submit to having their guns taken away without due process. they presume you are guilty. under the new red flag laws, if you have the money, if you have the resources, you might be able to fight to keep your arms. red flag laws prevent people from seeking help. if you get red flagged, they do not provide you with mental health. in the 50 states that have laws dealing with involuntary commitment, they provide you with mental help. with red flag laws, they era take the person who they believe will be a danger and provide no help whatsoever, and how do you know that you have taken all of their weapons or that they couldn't get more? people knowing this will not seek mental help. if they've got an issue, they think that stigma will cause them to lose their rights. it is worse than having a red flag law. i yield back to the gentleman from florida. >> i yield to the gentleman from ohio. >> does the gentlelady insist on a point of order? >> i do not insist on a point of order. >> i will recognize myself in opposition to the amendment. this amendment is not right because it says that this congress disfavors the enactment of red flag laws, and yet although this committee has reported out a red flag bill to the floor, the congress, the house has not yet voted on it, and the house will probably vote on it next week, at which point this amendment would be right. i oppose this amendment at the time. >> mr. chairman, i believe the amendment says in the states, that congress would disfavor the enactment of laws known as red flag laws in the states where they currently exist. does that alter the chairman's view? >> i would oppose that. it is not up to congress. >> i believe the chairman has a different view of that when it comes to voting rights. >> reclaiming lifetime. protecting constitutional rights is a federal concern. >> so is the second amendment and due process. >> yes, they are. >> who else seeks recognition? for what purpose does mr. bishop seek recognition? >> i will speak on the amendment. it is interesting. i learned a good bit in the scramble to get ready for this hearing, last-minute, called in recess, and then mr. tiffany had amendment earlier today. i don't know if most americans realize, but in the existing law, it is unlawful for any person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental -- mental institution to possess a weapon. as has been said, and i think it is not generally understood, these baker laws that exist -- i think there is a general term that exists for them in state after state -- if you get a good look at the history of gun control, this has been a subject that has been debated for many years, and those things that are evidently appropriate have long since been dealt with. the difference between those laws that have been considered and undertaken over the course of years in the united states before and red flag laws is the words "has been adjudicated that is the nature of the process. these are fundamental constitutional rights we are talking about. we have some differences of opinion about that. some don't know that heller recognized a fundamental constitutional right to individuals under the second amendment, but you really cannot justify stripping someone of a fundamental constitutional right without giving them due process. due process has a meaning of its own. the amount a process that is due has always been commensurate with the nature of the right. if we are talking about stripping someone of a fundamental right, you cannot make a very good case for skipping some limited amount of process. the adjudication of a judge of an affidavit or two, particularly by a witness who may be loaded with bias for the reasons mr. gaetz articulated, and then their rights are gone. the one that was stuck in >> it is the kind of thing that can renew itself. it can renew indefinitely. in masquerades as a temporary one which should not be done in any event. i am waiting to see what the arguments are of those who advocate for this, but i think it is almost impossible to justify and our law to the state recognizes this. that is why it appears as it does. that people are entitled to due process. i yield to the gentleman from florida. >> in many cases the red flag would not be the most effective means of dealing with somebody who is intent on committing one of these terrible atrocities. at parkland, you had a neighbor witnessed the shooter practice in the background. the neighbor called the fbi and told them. you had probable cause to engage in law enforcement activity to stop violence. instead of fixing that, we are instead trying to go into this ticket for tap -- tit for tat. i think you are looking at something here that is a high likelihood of depriving rights, very low likelihood of being the effective mechanism to stop violence. >> another thought before my time expires. the longer i am here that worries me more is the use of power by government officials. there is a lot more that can be said about that. i yield back. >> the gentleman leads back. >> 19 states including the state of florida has a form of red flag laws. president biden and president trump both support these laws following the deadly shootings in el paso, dayton and ohio. president trump says we must make sure they do not have access to firearms. if they do those firearms can be taken through rapid due process. that is why i've called for red flag laws, also known as extremist protection orders. and quote. this legislation i have put forth i have lived in the language directly from the language of senator lindsey graham and senator richard blumenthal. this is nothing different about this legislation. they first introduced it in 2018. it has already been agreed upon by our colleagues here in this committee and it will be voted on in the house and it will pass. republicans as well as democrats have deemed that this federal extremist protection order are vitally necessary to preventing unnecessary carnage, so there is due process that is established in this legislation and i am not going to let you sit here and say it is not. law enforcement, family and members will file a petition requesting federal court issues these production orders. prohibiting individuals that are considered a threat to themselves or others from having access to purchasing or possessing firearms. if this legislation was an important, why did the state of florida and other 18 states enacted? they recognize it is effective. they recognize it is effective legislation and saves lives. you can sit here and talk about no due process. it is not the truth. this legislation has shown in many instances and other research substantiates that any state and i heard something contradictory earlier. states that have federal extremist protection orders have massive reductions in fatal shooting's and burgers. this legislation works. we have seen it over and over again. we have seen this happen exactly -- definitely by the governor of florida. he established this right after parkland. >> will the gentlewoman yield? >> no, i will not. i will yield to jamie raskin from maryland. >> thank you for your leadership and your passion. when we point out there are more guns than people in america, our friends say the problem is not guns, it is the people, despite the fact that we have rate of gun homicide 20 times higher than european countries. they say it is the people. the states that legislate to permit police officers to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms when somebody has proven to be a danger to other people or themselves. you think our friends would say that some good focus. but of course they oppose that because the nra opposes all forms of gun legislation. they are categorically opposed to anything we can do to try to lift this terror across the country. they claim it due process, but the police and family members cannot seize the guns. you have to go to court. the court hears the whole case and decides whether to temporarily remove them. this outrageous amendment demonstrates the frivolity of their whole approach to this. they are not going to do anything to get rid of assault weapons. and they will not do anything that allows the states to pass laws that actually try to target people who have proven themselves to be a danger to other people. i thank you for your leadership and i yield back to you. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman is recognize. >> the language in the gentleman's amendment is accurate. red flag laws triple on an individual's due process and second amendment rights. that is exactly what these laws do. all you have to do is look at the build the democrats passed last october. it defines who can file a petition to take away another individuals second amendment liberty. dating partner of the respondent. think about that. the ex-boyfriend goes to court, says she crazy and she and i have a gun. there is a hearing within 24 hours. what kind of investigation can happen that quick? he gets to remain confidential. he just sign something saying she is crazy and should not have a firearm. there is a hearing within 24 hours and she does not get to show up. to defend herself. the ex-boyfriend is out to get her. and she cannot have a firearm for two weeks. what if the scenario is even worse? what if he is intent on doing her harm and he knows he took away her ability to defend yourself? that is what this bill would do. no due process and for her to get it back, she have to go to court and the evidence standard is lower. that is why these things are so dangerous. this is going to be abused. probably already is in the states who have done it. we all want to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys and people with mental illness but this is not going to do that. mr. bishop brought up a great point. we have to be careful about the awesome power of government to go after people. we talked about this a lot. we had an fbi whistleblower come forward and talk to us about what happened in the school board scenario where they investigated a mother because she was in the group moms for liberty and had a gun. this is a scary direction where the democrats want to go. i hope we can send a message to the united states senate that this is not the way to go. you do not want a law that will deprive people of due process and take away their second amendment liberties. this is a good amendment and i hope we can adopt it. i yield to the gentleman from kentucky. >> police do not want that world. there are sheriff's already who are refusing to implement these red flag laws because they put unnecessarily so somebody can prove a point or get back at a domestic partner, they put police and the dangerous situation where they have to wake up somebody unannounced that they know was armed who has no idea why somebody is coming through their door. why somebody is busting the door down. why somebody is dragging them out and trying to take away their firearm. the results are predictable and they have happened. you will have people who die in the execution of these warrants. the type of warrants that would make king george blushed. -- blush. a lot of the water has already gone over the dam hearing congress. that will be the case until november when the people get a chance to speak in the meantime it is up to the senate and the senators they are out of touch. out of touch with their constituents but also out of touch with the constitution. i yield back. >> red flag laws triple on an individual second amendment rights. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> let me announce that this will be well known. in wisconsin, the racine police department told residents to stay away from graceland cemetery due to multiple shots fired and multiple people injured. multiple people were shot during a funeral. there are victims but unknown how many at this time according to police. as we sit here, i am not representing the extent of the details. but as we sit here, there are multiple shots fired near racine , wisconsin. i am not representing the gun type, the facts are still unfolding. my colleagues are here arguing about saving lives. i do not take a back seat to the privileges of the constitution and how valuable they are. in my skin, i have had much of that denied over history. i was denied due process. i was considered property in terms of ancestors. formerly enslaved africans. i know what the history speaks about denying rights. but to equate red flag laws that were supported by senator lindsey graham in 2018 and bat have been suggested that they would be supported by republican senators and 2022 and to compound the injury with the repetitive statement that we are rushing ahead, we are doing things too fast. we are bullying. while, none of that talk takes guns out of a disturbed person's hands. the perpetrator in buffalo was disturbed with the mental disease of white supremacy. nobody knows whether or not that attitude when he equate to a red flag, but certainly he was filled with evil and hatred. the perpetrator share in uvalde had mountains of social media of murdering women and sexually abusing them. a disturbed 18-year-old. who knows how much more? if there had been a waiting period, he might not have been able to do this dastardly deed. maybe the grandmother could have raised the issue with police. this provision in this bill on the red flag provides due process. it indicates you can be in court within 72 hours. it indicates you can still come to court. you have an opportunity for notice and to be heard. you can be represented by counsel or if you do not have the ability to do so would you will have a court appointed counsel. this is not a fishing expedition. this is something the court will determine. this is not around up or a lesser wink of people. -- this is not around up or a lassoing of people. or students to be killed because guns are not stored. they are not going to educate the american people about storage or trafficking. or munitions. magazines. and the idea of the gun age being too low. these red flag laws can save lives. and it is seen -- obscene. one mass shooting after another. i for one will not accept it. let us pass this bill to protect our children. i yield back. red flag the gentlewoman yields back. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> ed is not my rules that allows the scrap of pipe proceeding. -- crap of a proceeding. when you give us 48 hours notice. now we are availing ourselves of this technology. perhaps the committee is voting at night in their pajamas. you want to accuse me of sleeping because i do not have my camera on? give me a break. this is a pretext. democrats come in here saying we do not want to take your guns and then they say we want to take your guns. we are just going to do some soft changes to the laws. but then they admit what their goal is. to get rid of semiautomatic weapons and disarmed the american people. that is the goal. it is a pretext, all of this. that is the reality. mr. gates offered a recognition of what the red flag is all about. if you have a real issue was somebody being a danger to society, you can go down that road. you can in texas. go down that road and deprive them of liberty. within 72 hours you have a follow-up hearing. let's talk about if your going to deprive liberty. we are going to say we are going to, you. --, you. the reality is let us have that conversation if you want to have that conversation. to sit here and say we do not know for sure that the red flag laws are effective or not. i have read studies by lots of organizations. demonstrating that very much effectiveness. there are real questions about how they are implemented. my friends on the other side of the break aisle are critical of offering this. i think it is a deprivation of rights. my view on this is pretty simple. every member of the other side of the aisle made perfectly clear what the goal is. it is to disarm citizens. that is the actual objective. when we are talking about red flag laws, when we are talking about the size of the magazine, whether or not you have weapons that are locked up, that is the objective. i yield to the gentleman from florida. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. we heard from that gentle lady from texas about the horrors of slavery and racism. i do wonder whether or not there would be a racist application of some of these red flag laws. i do not know whether we study whether or not they would be granted in cases where you have different ethnicities or backgrounds. the gentlelady was actually make an argument not in favor of red flag laws. given the propensity of them to be used in a rush to leave misaligned way. -- racially misaligned way. he knows full well it is not an adversarial hearing. it is like applauding somebody for scoring an uncontested layup. it is the due process version of that. our whole contest due process relies on an adversarial process and that is one of the problems of this red flag. i see our time has expired. >> is mr. raskin seeking recognition? >> i was going to ask my friend a question. i moved to strike the last word. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> this is a critical debate we are having right now because i understood my colleagues to be saying they could not support legislation against high-capacity magazines. these magazines were used both in buffalo and give all day to dramatically increase the scope of the carnage. a number of states including my state have said you do not need high-capacity magazines for hunting. you do not need them to defend your home. you need them only if you want to use a weapon as a killing machine. i do not know whether any of our colleagues want to suggest some perfectly lawful way that somebody can use high-capacity magazines that would justify the mass murders in buffalo getting a hold of them. they say they oppose any limits on that because that would violate the second amendment. even though supreme court was perfectly clear in the heller decision that the second amendment protects the right to have rifles for hunting and recreation. i concede that. i embrace that. that is fine. it protects the right of people to use weapons for self-defense in the home the supreme court says. but it does not protect your right to have machine guns or tanks or nuclear weapons or semi-out of -- semi automatic weapons of war. that common sense understanding which is supported by 90% of americans, is perfectly consistent with what the supreme court said in the heller decision, which is you have a right to hunt, but you do not have a right to carry weapons of war and to public schools. you do not have a right to access that without a background check so we are fighting for a universal violent criminal background check. you are confusing people by saying that somehow any form of gun safety regulation violates the second amendment. that is nonsense. i want to get back to the red flag laws. they want weapons of war to be purchased by 18-year-olds. which is another notion rejected by the vast majority of the american people. but they say you have to leave the guns alone. you have to go after the people. and they talk about evil people and so on. the states say if a person is proving to be in imminent danger , you go to a court and you tell a judge there was a danger. you can temporarily seize those weapons and the person can get into court 72 hours later and prove they are not a danger. but our colleagues say no to back. in other words, they want to make it impossible for us to pass any legislation that would advance public safety. this is a radical distraction for what needs to be done to save america from the nightmare of these massacres that are continuing right through these hearings. it is a bloodbath. i am ashamed to be a part of the hearing where colleagues get up and talk about anything but what we can do to stop it. we have to get rid of the hypostatic desk capacity magazines. -- high-capacity magazines. they want to continue to allow 18-year-olds to go out and buy an ar-15. that is not a serious approach to public safety and you are not understanding serious understanding of what the supreme court says about the second amendment. i wish you would step to try to deceive people about what the amendment says. let's do out tutorial on the heller decision. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the visceral response of the last speaker. it was interesting to hear his level of vegetation. i am looking at the red flag law that was passed last october. there are multiple conflicting issues with regard to due process. but what i find interesting is this x partake order. that is always a very dicey piece of evidence for those of us who actually try cases. that is a very dicey issue and here you are allowing an order. if the petitioner makes in a bowel -- makes a statement that the respondent opposes -- poses a risk of imminent injury. but what is that based on? either actual knowledge or another individual. if the petitioner believes somebody else is credible. so you have an order issued on hearsay. by somebody -- this is not like doing a search warrant which would be done on a reliable informant by an officer. this is by john doe on the street who ran into somebody at the bar who was telling him about so and so. that is the kind of due process that is not due or process. i yield to representative gaetz. >> let the message be astonishingly clear. if you back red flag laws as some response to some emotion that you have, you betray your voters, who are a traitor to the constitution, the second amendment, the fifth amendment, you do nothing to make mass shootings less likely and you put a target on the back of your constituents. to be subject to bizarre proceedings that you would not see in any other type of circumstance i have an profound impact on your rights. and these will be abuse. they are being abused. how long until the conversations about kicking senator hawley off of aircraft turn into conversations about taking his guns away? this is about power. what the democrats want this to ensure the government has the power to take your guns away without giving you due process. and shame on any republican in the senate that would pave the way to that type of deprivation to our liberty. i yield back. >> earlier today, mr. jones said you will not stop us from passing this. if the filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it. we will not rest until we have taken weapons of war from our communities. that if the term democrats have concocted. it speaks to their desire to reject the core right entailed in the second amendment. if they abuse all those things, but they abuse this? will they use a red flag law and a favorable official in a jurisdiction? would they use those people to go attack their political opponents gun rights? i just do not understand why once they have told you who they are, you have to know the context in which you are operating. that is the context. in that situation, you are being asked to say we will cut due process for this fundamental right. i do not think you can do it. will the gentleman yield? >> the gentleman is recognized. >> this is a radical position being offered. they claim that we should support ensuring that people who are in imminent danger to themselves and others, have a constitutional right to access a firearm and to deny them that right what quote trip along their due process and second amendment right. you know who did not have due process? you know who did not have the constitutional right to life respected? the kids at parkland, sandy hook, you've all day, -- uvalde. no, i will not yield. do not ask again. they ensure that people who are a grave danger to themselves do not have access to a firearm. the former republican president said we must make sure that those who pose a great risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and if they do so those firearms can be taken through rapid due process. the former republican president, the bill introduced by senator lindsey graham. no matter how dangerous you are, you should have unfettered access to a firearm because the second amendment during tease it. that is nonsense. protection orders are modeled after domestic violence orders. they have due process. that is the due process which exists. it is available in all the states they have these laws. they have been upheld by courts when challenged. the idea that there is no due process is below me. -- baloney. it is not the permanent removal of a firearm. it is the temporary removal so that person does not kill others or themselves. many examples where the lives of individuals and others have been saved by this temporary intervention. it is shocking that our republican colleagues have been clamoring about due process of would-be killers and they never mentioned the deprivation of due process of victims of gun violence. the deprivation families experience when people are slaughtered by a gun. have not heard one word about the constitutional right to remain alive. and this notion that you cannot take away a gun from a seriously dangerous person even temporarily as shocking. it is radical. it is a departure from most republicans. 90% of the american people support this legislation. 75% of gun owners and the former president supports it. the notion that somebody can make a false claim. people are required to testify under oath. there are penalties if you like and most states make it illegal to file false petitions. what this really is is gun manufacturers and gun salesman who say no matter what anyone in america should have access to as many guns as they want no matter who they slaughter because gun sales promote revenue. and at the gun manufacturers do not want any limitations on it. it is disgraceful to hear people on this committee to argue that somebody who was seriously mentally ill and is a danger to others that they have a constitutional right and it will trip along the rights. that that that seriously mentally ill person cannot buy a gun and smaller -- smaller people. -- slaughter people. >> if i could summarize what we are doing here today. this is the last amendment to a series of six bills. republicans have done triage trying to save the constitution in the face of six bills that exhibit disregard for the constitution and disregard for the safety of american citizens. republicans tried to defend due process. democrats said no thanks. republicans tried to establish what the supreme court has established that this is an individual right to keep and bear arms. democrats do not even want people who need guns to have them. they do not want guns anywhere. they would like to repeal the second amendment. we tried to protect the rights of domestic violence victims. not just the right to defend themselves but the right not to be prosecuted for gun trafficking. we tried to protect the rights of military families in an amendment. we have tried to protect draft age adults. we have heard them be insulted here, that there brains are not fully developed. some here have decided there brains are not fully formed but they decided they can go fight for us. what is the one thing we have not done? we have not talked about what would fix this problem. the depraved individuals -- by the way we are having this hearing as a knee-jerk reaction to shootings that have recently happened, but what is going through these depraved individuals minds and is this going to change whether they carried this out or not? a lot of them steal their guns. they do not care if they die. they have some distorted image of what would make them famous. if they could get a body count on the soft target. they even pick elementary schools. we need to deprive them of that. they are copycats. they see this in the news. how do you keep them from that? they should be met with certain death if they target our children. instead of advertising our children a soft targets come out for in that institution can carry a firearm to protect the kids. sane adults should be able to protect kids from insane individuals. which of these two signs do you think should the shooter will choose? the data is in. every school that displays the sign none of them have ever had a shooting. here we are 32 years later since the first knee-jerk reaction, the 1990 gun free zone act, it has not prevented a single school shooting ever and it has caused the loss of life of young students and teachers. i will yield to my friend from florida. >> can we address rapid due process. when we call for it at the border, you tell us it cannot happen at all. but then you want rapid due process to take guns away from americans. i do not think the american people understood the bargain they were getting when they voted for democrats. i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. my colleagues on the others talk about one of the ways to fight gun violence is to take care of the mental health issues of the gunmen who kill americans. we can take care of their mental health issues and we can arm our teachers. that seems to be their only solution. but when we talk about common sense, they do not want to fund it nor do they want to protect our children from people, particularly particularly 18-year-olds who are exhibiting the kind of conduct that warrant an intervention in advance before they do something to kill our students. so i do not understand, that is a contradiction. what we are getting today is a lot of spurious arguments and amendments to try to defeat this common sense legislation offered so as to score points with wayne lapeer, the executive director of the nra. after all back in 2014, we note the nra spent 103 million dollars in contributions to politicians who protect and preserve its ability to dictate policy. in 2015, almost $100 million. i do not know what the figures are for 2017-2020. i do know the attorney general for new york filed a civil lawsuit against the nra and wayne lapeer, wearing $4000 suits. i admired the one he he had on in houston the other day. he chartered yachts and burns the whole family, cruises to the bahamas. just spending whatever money comes into his grasp. he was sued by the attorney general and had to declare bankruptcy. she is watching and he is approving of the performance of my friends on the other side of the break i own. i think the american people see through it. they want common sense gun reform and they want it now. i am going to yield to my colleague from georgia. who has been trying to get a red flag law pestered this congress. >> thank you so much. i am so disappointed in my republican colleagues as they spew fear and hypothetical scenarios of ambushes in the dead of night. to my colleague in florida, i resent your threats of one being a traitor and supporting red flag laws. let's just talk facts right now. 90% of the american public supports red flag laws. between 1990 nine and 2021 at least 16,000 extremist protection petitions were filed. the majority have been filed since the parkland sheeting. -- sheeting. -- shooting. i am not going to talk anymore statistics. as a human being, as a mother, i am just talking for real. you walk a day in my shoes and you talk to the hundreds of family members and law enforcement and survivors who knew in advance their loved one swearing crisis and there was nothing they could do. i am out of time. >> the gentlelady yields bad. -- back. >> i am in support of the amendment. this has been difficult to listen to. i wanted to be there in person but they airline was not cooperative. the laws that keep us from being liable from the things we say in hearings. when we are accused of wanting dangerous people to have guns, we cannot sue for slander. so many ridiculous things are so slanderous but you are protected because we are in a hearing. but it is outrageous. misrepresenting what is said. as far as the red flag laws, i remember them saying everybody is in favor of red flag laws. a lot of people bought it because it was not explained. we were begging the obama administration to tell us what gets somebody put on the no-fly list, like a three-star general in my district was. they could not explain it. we could not find out how you got on the no-fly list or how you got off. but these are some of the same people who are saying you have nothing to worry about with red flag. trust us, it was due process when you got put on the no-fly list and now you cannot get off. you cannot have a hearing. look, as a judge, i have hearings and if somebody knows somebody else is dangerous, i had those hearings and i ordered in most cases when the evidence was there, yes, this person is dangerous. this person is a threat to themselves and to others. you can do that. i have done it. so that they would not have a firearm. that can be done right now in texas. i know because i was a judge. i have listened to all the slander that i care to listen to. it is outrageous what we have listened to and i need more time because democrats keep interrupting. this is my time. this should not pass until we have bills that we can review. i yield the remainder of my time to my friend from ohio. >> the other side has talked about rapid due process. what is it? it is a hearing where the person is going to lose their second amendment right is not allowed to be present at. the petitioner can be there but the person who loses their rights cannot be there. rapid due process is going to lead to the suspension of people's rights. the gentleman from rhode island said do not worry. it is just temporary. your rights are there some of the time i guess is what they think the constitution says. that is not how it works. this is a fundamental liberty, the second amendment. and they say do not worry, you can get it back after we implement rapid due process. it is not due process by definition. the gentleman from florida is right. this is an assault on the fifth amendment and the second amendment. but democrats say it is temporary. we promise we will not go further even though they said it is just a start. that is what is so frightening. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman is recognized. >> correct me if i am wrong. i thought i heard mr. massey express a concern that purchases contribute to the gun violence. i would just ask have you read the legislation? this is legislation that would ban those purchases. >> actually, the legislation makes domestic violence done subject to prosecution for gun trafficking. >> nowhere in the legislation does it say that. >> you voted against an amendment that would have prevented it. >> can you point to the provision? >> it everybody unless they are a family member in order to transfer a firearm. >> this legislation would ban purchases of the kind you claim to be concerned. this goes to the heart of the matter which is that you guys are trying to avoid taking any responsibility whatsoever for the role that your inaction and your opposition to what we are trying to do today has played in continuing the status quo. no, no. i also want to address another issue. i will not allow my colleagues to claim that gun violence is a state or local issue. our gun laws are only as strong as our weakest states laws. the people in my home state of new york paid the lethal price for the reckless policies of gop states across the country. 76% of traced guns across state lines came from states without background checks. guns smuggled up from the south. in new york city 90% of guns recovered from a crime scene came from out of state. gun violence does not respect borders. that means children shot and killed walking around their neighborhoods. i told you about the fear i felt as an 11-year-old when i learned about the columbine shooting miles away. just imagine the fear and pain of the 11-year-old killed in new york city last month. the friend has been taken from them all because congress would not do a thing about the flood of guns in new york city. this tale is all too familiar in new york. in january and 11 month old baby was struck by a stray bullet. kids across new york city are being killed and i am not going to stand for that. we will not fail the children of new york city. we will not fail the 29 new yorkers endured when somebody fired a handgun 33 times in a subway car. we will not fail them. we have a moral duty not to fail them. i would like to yield to my as i was saying before and i'm going to say this ruefully. i'm talking not as a legislator but as a gun violence survivor who spends a lot of time and days and hours and months and weeks, talking to others like myself, talking to other individuals across the country who recognize their loved ones were in crisis, who recognize that loved ones needed help, who recognized their loved ones had access to firearms and ammunition and had no recourse, no legal recourse whatsoever to protect their loved ones from themselves or them doing auto we harm to others in their community. walk a day in my shoes would have to sit down and listen to the stories over again, from law enforcement who said at their hands are tied. blocked a day in my shoes, you can spew all of the hypotheticals you want, but until you live those experiences, don't you dare try to say that red flag does not work. the statistics, the data is there to substantiate the need for these laws to save as many lives as we can. block a day in my shoes, do you -- walk a day in my shoes, don't you dare sit here and hypothetically scare people with scenarios and fear mongering. don't you dare. the american people deserve far better than this and they deserve to have their lives cared for. what you seem to know nothing about. >> gentlemen, it is expired. your recognized. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. i was hoping we would focus on something we can do to help the kids in our school. something we could do right now, something that would not take years of debate, something that would actually help. there has been a number of amendments that have been suggested. i turn my attention to those. let me walk down through why it is being suggested by my democratic colleagues, why it won't immediately help. the first 18 to 21 constitutionally, ghost guns, suspect storage prohibiting access, constitutionally suspect. bump stocks, constitutionally suspect. the large magazine minimization of those without consequence from a practical standpoint. the gun trafficking is flood. each one one of these will not help. they will be challenged and nothing is going to happen for our kids. what disturbs me the most about what i have seen today is the failure of my democratic colleagues to reach out to republicans who have a list of hills they should have -- ills that you should have worked into what we working today. richard hudson stop to act, which would secure every school to protect our kids the hr 151, and ics act, hr 194, the report on and -- hr 1604 stops purchases, prosecuting gun crime . hr 1567. hr 1229. the safety act. not a peep about these. if there is any indication about what this truly is which is a political gesture at best and a bad set commentary on an inability to get things done, is a really bad commentary, the failure to incorporate that which republicans in good faith have suggested bills that already exist. i want to go back to the list of amendments. there were three, the retired officers, the rso and the school safety. we have done something right now there could be any number of things that would allow us to go into our schools and make them safe. right now, not what is being challenged in course -- courses why our kids suffer. i've never heard so much with so little accomplished in my life. are yield. -- are yield. -- i yield to the gentleman from texas. >> i did not realize, he was taking time earlier. let me mentioned 16% of voters, republican and democrat leave -- believe that preventing properly trained teachers from carrying a firearm makes schools more dangerous yet you would not even let us get close to passing that. i would like to yield my time. >> i will not take so much time but this has been interesting. i don't know if there is an amount of self awareness or arrogance, my friends from new york was blaming the rest of the country for what is happening to new york. what happened in new york is because of policies. we see people run every single day without protection in every single week we have 50 to 60 people shot, nothing makes sense. i see this remarkable emotion from the other side about what is happening, which we should. it happens every single week in like people's hoods. they cannot protect themselves and now we want to take this process and failed policy and let the rest of the country deal with this misery. misery should never be a political strategy. what i am seeing right now ladies urban communities is nothing but misery so people are -- now in these urban communities is nothing but misery. give everybody the rights like we've been giving our constitution to protect themselves. give people the right, teach them how to use their arm, and you will not have any issues. this is something we need to change. we cannot wait till 2023 to give people the basic constitutional rights to protect themselves. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> mr. chairman. i have to strike the last word. thanks mr. chairman. just a few final random thoughts. i am glad we are here. that we have the courage to make sure we bring this bill to the floor. that we get through this as much as despicable as it has been. i just want to remember what the second amendment says. because it has been awfully idolized in the strange set of ways from our colleagues on the others of the aisle. the second amendment reads, 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. do you think the founding fathers were picturing ar style weapons, glock, not to mention the fact that this has to do with the rail regulated militia -- well regulated militia? this was a different time, they would be ashamed of the arguments they heard today. some of the words that offended me and i wonder how parents in this room who have struggled and suffered from gun violence felt each time folks on the others' line of the aisle said, oh, the democrats, it's just a need jerk reaction -- knee-jerk reaction. after columbine, knee jerk? 23 years after columbine, hundreds of thousands of students, terrorized, terrified, thousands wounded or killed. i wonder how this sounds to a parent who was lost a child. i honor that you are here today and your son ethan has been here. the entire time, witness to this. and i hope, and i know how proud he is of you and your colleague and the work you are doing to bring the truth to the american people. the other thing that strikes me about this conversation is how glib the folks on the others of the aisle are about the constitution, the second amendment,, the fifth amendment due process, do notice what is missing from their conversation for these many hours? as any recognition of the slaughter in this country and our responsibility to do something about it. why were you elected to office? why did you seek this position? if it wasn't to save lives, to lift up those less fortunate? to shield our children from the terrorizing of those crazy posters. and must be fun to walk into schools that have those warnings up. think of the children, in u valde. who walked out of that classroom. think of what they saw and will never be able to a race from their minds -- erased from their minds. i invite my colleagues to visit the work of 97% an organization that collects data from gun owners bipartisan folks who own guns do not own guns, democrats, independents, republicans, as i said earlier today you are out of touch. you are. out of touch with the american people the american people are offended by our failure to act and they are offended by your absence of showing any compassion for the loss of life. eight makes me wonder, do you have children -- it makes me wonder do you have grandchildren, children? do you worry that the next phone call could be that something happened to them? we are at a crossroads. we have been here before but we are at a crossroads yet again. kind of like robert frost, i hope we finally take the one less traveled ride and act. act to save lives from this public health crisis of our own making. i ask the senate, unlike my colleague who tried to threaten the senate, i asked the senate please stop sitting on your hands. please stop hiding behind the filibuster. please have the courage to save lives. i end by saying thank you, mr. chairman. when we started the majority four years ago, what was the first hearing you had? gun violence. after two decades of nobody wanting to have a hearing on it. i think you, mr. chairman. we are going to get this done, with or without our republican colleagues help. i yield back. >> for what purpose does must escobar seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman. here we are over seven hours into the debate over our efforts ongoing violent prevention, -- gun violence pretty -- gun violence prevention. on how to keep american schoolchildren, hospital employees safe. how to keep our citizens alive in the face of horrific on violence? so, what are my bro republican colleagues ideas? i will give you two ideas, their amendments have included an attempt to got our efforts to raise the ownership age from 18 to 21 for ownership of some of the deadliest weapons, a bill, allow that would have prevented the carnage in uvalde, an another amendment to prevent us from having red flag laws altogether, that is the current amendment we are debating. in fact, they have used this entire days debate to try to expand access to guns and to prevent the common sense solution that americans are demanding of us. yes, they are standing in the way to let us do our job. so that we can deliver to the american people what they are demanding of us. fellow americans, here are the facts. there is one political party in the america standing up to the victims of gun violence, there is one political party in america voting for commonsense solutions that could prevent some of the carnage we have suffered from. there is only one political party in america that wants to protect law enforcement from weapons that leave them outgunned. that is the democratic party. there is one political party lay america standing -- in the -- in the america standing in the way of keeping our children safe, that is the american party -- report -- tameka party -- democratic party. it is time for americans to ask themselves one enough is finally enough. they need to ask themselves, if they are finally outraged enough to hold those who stand in the way of their safety accountable. believe what they do, not what they say. remember, they care more about feeding the extremism that is radicalizing our country than they do about saving lives. it will not stop until they try to arm every teacher, every nurse, every doctor, every grocery store worker. the absurdity of their extremism is deadly. mr. chairman, i am ready to take action once again. we will see who votes in favor of safety and who does not. take note, america. i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. the question occurs on the amendment, the nature set on the amendment. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. according to those in question -- >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> nope. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> yes. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> yes. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> mr. chair how my did -- how will my recorded? i vote no. >> no. >> no. >> are there any other members who have not been recorded who wish to be recorded? >> mr. chairman there are 18 ayes and 24 nos. >> mr. chairman, into the records which i would like to list very quickly. the millions of americans were supporting the protect our kids act include the national education association and american medical association. the national alliance of specialized instructional support, the organization of american fedor is a -- fedor is asian of teachers. they support the legislation on the element of the bills that are in the legislation with unanimous consent, to submit in the record. i would like to submit in the record a number of ar styled rifles that were produced in the millions post 2004. and millions more were produced at that time after the expiration. the consent of the number of nasa shooters, under -- nasa shooters, -- nasa shooters -- mass shooters. consent for an excerpt of the case indicating the lack of prohibition on limitations on gun use. then, i have consent to show the children and others that died because of the lack of storage, along to protect -- a lot to protect children -- a law to protect children under three years old. finally pages and pages of americans who have died in mass shootings, including those who have died in buffalo, from and lante, el paso and of course -- in atlanta, el paso and of course uvalde. >> for our processes -- purposes, your recognized. >> strike the last word on the -- thank you mr. chairman. the problem with politicians especially in d.c. is that they tell the american people's they are to protect them from harm, from every aspect of people, from every tragedy that we are never going to let a bad thing happen again. the people in this committee say they can stop people and we must do something but they have admitted multiple times that it is all a perfect pretext to ban weapons. if this were about policy, we would be addressing facts. 2% of prosecuted criminals have locked up -- state criminals. 8.8% of criminals obtain their weapons at a gun show. police making arrests and only in percent are crime supported, crime is up, to 2021 arson is up 40% compared to 2019. in san antonio crime is skyrocketing. in chicago, why isn't the u.s. attorney the d.a. there, focusing on straw purchases to address the 800 plus homicides? straw purchases are already a crime from those prohibited from owning a firearm. we have won 7000 deaths skyrocketing across our border -- $107,000 -- 107,000 deaths skyrocketing across the border. hand and knives documented homicides are greater than rifles. we have a cultural rot in this country. this legislation focuses on targeting law-abiding americans. it would make it unlawful to obtain a gun for nonfamily member or friend or a quickness, regardless of their eligibility, like a current law requires. it would make me a criminal several times over, living as i do today. for example, here, i have a 20 gauge single shotgun. i have it right here. i have them sitting in the room out, exposed, why? so i can go kill a snake, and do what i need to go do i kill things because that is what guns are for. i've had them since i was nine years old. my children who are under the age of 18, they know that those guns are to be used only to go kill a snake, to go kill a coyote, or protect a dog that is a chase down or track down that is where we have guns that you are saying if i leave my 20 gauge or 22 sitting out and i have a 12-year-old son, and i do not have that locked up, oh gosh, sorry let me go get the key to go get it unlocked, that is bullshit. that is what it is and that is what you are doing to the american people. now you have part of the provision that says organist at the age. -- says that you are going to set the age. the factors that this is about the last culture war against gun owning and supporting americans, that is what it is about. it is about refusing to acknowledging the fundamental reason and purpose for the second amendment. it is not specifically about hunting or self-defense but even defense against tyranny. i don't expect the term, regarding the ar-15. it is used for hunting primarily. it is the most popular rifle. but even if we were depriving american people of the weapon, most committee members are democrats --what are the citizens supposed to do if the government is to radically trampling the rights? what are we supposed to do? what should americans do if the government in conjunction of international organization attempt to lock us into apartment buildings like they do in china to stamp out covid? what to the american people do? in history, the soviet union established gun control from 1929 to 1953. they have mastered 20 million people. we know about germany and gun control and what it meant for jews in that part of the world in germany and austria. poland and throughout europe. we have china, establishing gun control in 1935 and another 20 million people were massacred. people as people. what we know about the uvalde shooter, it was a psychotic 18-year-old who talked about raping women and hurting animals. for strapping the dignity and role of fathers relating to sans -- sons. in order to tell american people alike, the government will protect them half this company is willing to take away a citizens god-given right to protect him or herself from harm and the very tyranny being applied to them denied that right. >> i recognize myself on the ans. i will be very brief. i will simply express my shock to what i just heard from mr. roy we talked about. using guns to fight tyranny. he is talking about tyranny and american troops. we ought to be able to shoot american troops i find that shocking. i yield back and recognize -- >> i move to strike the last word. mr. chairman, i haven't spoken here today. i have listened for the eight hours. now, in my 22nd year since i came here in january 2001. i have to say that what i found missing from the debate today was some sort of legitimacy to the dialogue about, could we find common ground? quite candidly, mr. chabot said very well, i can find common ground would you consider it and i heard no consideration. many of the members made it clear that there were some aspects to this that they could deal with but not the combination of all of these bills. i think there was a very well orchestrated opening statement by the ranking member that made it clear that some of what is in this bill, and the court ruling is not favorable to what this legislation is written. none of this seems like anything other than, it's an election year, multiple tragedies have happened, so, let's look not at the 86% of mass shootings that involve people over 21 but let's look at that 14% that involved young people under 21. and let's have a bill for that. let's look at a weapon, the ar-15, or similar, and let's try to live in the glory that we had in the 90's when it was previously banned, even though the court has ruled it was not a constitutional move. list goes on. i won't reiterate it. it has been a long day for everyone. i'm going to join the course of republicans and say this, if you want to have sensible gun reform, particularly if you want to protect our children, if you want to protect our schools, if you want to have the kinds of reform that you say you want to have, the let's have a dialogue bill by bill, item by item, if we do that, police we will not have so many statements made, as to the intent. i heard it on both sides, the intent of one versus the other. i do not believe that your motives or anything other than trying to find solutions. mr. jordan i don't believe you're trying to find solutions. i am sad and we did not find solutions here today. every single vote came down on partyline. i hope, the next time we have a markup on a bill, the next time we have a hearing on a bill, that we will all do better. with that, mr. chairman i yield. >> would you please yield? >> thank you, very much. one of the challenges we have the loved ones of dead americans, who have died at the hands of gun violence and died at the hands of perpetrators who may have mental illness. let me not characterize it because that is a small percentage. but there are families, parents who are morning. they need answers. these are well thought out initiatives. >> reclaiming my time, i think this is where mr. massey was repeatedly accurate in giving us facts and figures on what we would or would not accomplish here. so, hopefully when mr. massey is in the majority or at least in a position to be heard and respected, those facts will be put out front and any solutions will be based on the numbers, as they really are. not to take away, from the grieving families that there are families today that are not grieving, because some law-abiding citizen had a weapon and protected that family. that is a balancing act that we, as a nation, balanced on the second amendment since our founding. it has lasted over 245 years. to that i would celebrate that that balance must be maintained. i think all of the members for their participation and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the question occurs on the amendment. this will be followed immediately by a fighting vote on the passage of the bell. -- bill. reporting quorum being present, requests on the motion. those in favor respond by saying aye, opposed no. the bill as ordered. the roll call voting is requested. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> aye. >> yes. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> i vote yes. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> absolutely, yes. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> ross votes aye. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. [inaudible] >> mr. bush is trying to get on. if you could just hold on for a second. >> mr. chairman, and my recorded? >> you are not. >> aye. >> miss bush? >> mr. bush you are not recorded. >> miss bush votes yes. >> mr. chairman there are 25 ayes. >> the bill is amended, favorably to the house. [applause] members will have two days to submit views, incorporating all documented amendments. this concludes our business for today, thank you to all of our members for attending. the meeting is adjourned. [no audio] [indiscernible]

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Georgia , El Paso , Texas , Dayton , Ohio , Atlanta , Kentucky , China , Florida , California , Wisconsin , San Antonio , Togo , Russia , Jordan , Germany , Maryland , Houston , Poland , Sandyhook , Chicago , Illinois , Americans , America , Soviet , American , King George , Richard Hudson ,