Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Want to make darn sure it does not fall into the hands of criminals. If we go through the background check as we sell it and the guy or gal is pure, we are OK. What if down the road the gun falls into the hands of a criminal and here comes your city or a city that says: You are liable because you are the seller we can trace to because of your record. I can say to you under this: Because you did it in a legal way, you are not liable. That encourages you to pursue legal activities. It does not deal with manufacturer liability. That is another issue for another day, not addressed anywhere in these amendments. Mr. President, that is as thorough as I can get with the Senator from Vermont. Let me conclude, because there are others who wish to debate.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for yielding. I stand in support of what I think is a very needed piece of legislation. While I stand always in defense of the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to own guns, I also recognize the tremendously valuable linkage between rights and responsibilities and the ability of people to understand what those responsibilities are and to perform them in law-abiding ways. The Senator from Missouri has recognized that in the laws we currently have, there is the potential, if not the reality, where we say to juveniles they cannot own handguns, up to a certain age, and that in fact we have seen there is a possibility, by definition of ``semiauto,'' that they could own one. Certainly, in the case of Littleton, CO, the acts were illegal. That does not make the point. The point is, the law needs to be specific. That is what the Senator from Missouri is doing at this moment. He is making it very clear, as it relates to semiauto assault weaponry and the loading devices, that they be appropriately prescribed under the law as it relates to juveniles and that which we prohibit juveniles from possessing. So I stand certainly in support of this. I encourage my colleagues to vote for it. I think it is the refinement of the laws of our country relating to gun ownership that clearly is deserving and appropriate in this legislation. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Let me reclaim my time to discuss that briefly, and then I will yield the floor because others wish to debate.

Mr. CRAIG. No, I will not. I will let the Senator seek the floor to debate on his time. I suggest that the Hatch-Craig amendments are a major step toward the enforcement of gun laws in this Nation, of stopping criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime, to make sure that the transaction does not result in guns falling into the hands of criminals, and still recognizing that the Internet is a fair and first amendment-protected expression as long as those expressions are not found to be illegal. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. I am not.

Mr. CRAIG. In these categories where people have found themselves immune if they do the following things--background check, through the registrant, under the conditions--it is important, do not think beyond the box. Think of the box of a gun show and gun show activities and the definitions therein of a special registrant and a new licensee. I am suggesting that we are trying to encourage people to become active in background checks and become increasingly legal by that.

Mr. CRAIG. If he doesn't check it out, he broke the law.

Mr. CRAIG. It is possible at the time we get the law enacted that there could be pending litigation within this section of operation.

Mr. CRAIG. No, it is not because you were right. It is because there was a section misqueued that was not included that was intended to be included. If I can go forward, because you deserve this explanation and you deserve this clarification because you raised the question in all fairness and honesty, all the immunity and exceptions within this section are tied to gun show transactions. It is very important to understand that. We are not talking about an environment outside gun shows; we are talking about an environment inside gun shows. The pending exceptions that the Senator from Vermont raised in question is a unique situation at a gun show. You and I go to a gun show. You are from Vermont, and I am from Idaho. We wish to transact the sale of a gun, but the gun is not there. It is at home in Vermont. You are selling it to me. You and I cannot do that under the law, because we cannot transact business interstate. So we go to a dealer at the gun show, and we agree that the dealer will handle the transaction. That dealer will do a background check on me, the purchaser, because you are selling it. You send the gun to the dealer, and the dealer sends it to me. That is the way it is currently being done in a voluntary way so that you and I do not find ourselves astraddle the Federal law on interstate transactions. That is what this section deals with.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. I will yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for his discourse on this. We believe pawnshops are now effectively regulated and their gun pawning activity is fully reported on a 24-hour basis to local law enforcement officers and that check goes forward. We think that is adequate and appropriate and right. That is the way it ought to be. I am not saying people who pawn guns ought not be checked, because they currently are.

Mr. CRAIG. I think he says he wants the knowledge here.

Mr. CRAIG. To the Brooks amendment, yes. I was not in the House at that time. Of course, I knew Jack Brooks was a strong defender of second amendment rights. That sounds like a pretty reasonable rendition.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I hope that those of our colleagues who are not on the floor this afternoon will take time to watch this debate and listen on television, because today we have very clear comparatives of something that works, that lessens the impact of Government, lessens the creation of a bureaucracy, and something that doesn't work which creates a very large bureaucracy against a substantial American pastime and an American business activity in this country. We are talking about gun shows. Some 5,000 gun shows across America are attended today by between 4.5 million and 5 million people annually. They are not in some back room or in some dark alley creating the environment for clandestine meetings between criminals. They are at fairgrounds, large convention centers and hotel lobbies. They are something that many Americans attend today because most Americans who attend gun shows are legitimate law-abiding citizens who have disposable income and wish to collect firearms as something they do in their pastime. Those are the true dynamics of a gun show. Let me read to you what the President of the United States --and I am afraid what my colleagues have tried to generate this afternoon is that it may be some evil activity. This is a radio message from the President of the United States, November 7, 1998, speaking of gun shows. . . . illegal arms, bazaars for criminals, and gun traffickers looking to buy and sell guns on a cash-and-carry/ no-questions-asked basis, entirely without background checks. That is the rhetoric that has imbued this issue and came up with this neat little quick phrase called a ``loophole.'' That is the basis from which we come this afternoon to this debate. Five million people are clandestine criminals going to gun bazaars across this Nation? Five million? I doubt that very much. In fact, the National Institute of Justice, which is an arm of the Justice Department of this administration, said this about gun shows: Less than 2 percent of the guns used by criminals may have come from gun shows. Less than 2 percent. So those are the dynamics and the realities of this debate. I don't know how you paint it any other way, except by using bright red and black paint, because other than that, you have to deal with the truth and the facts at hand. What is this great loophole that my colleagues are talking about at this time? The loophole, they would have you believe, happens to be the Federal law. That law is a very straightforward law. That law of several years ago defines what a gun dealer is and what a gun dealer isn't. It is the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Act of 1986. In there it is clearly defined what a gun dealer is and what a gun dealer isn't and, most importantly, what a private citizen is allowed to engage in in an occasional sale or exchange or purchase of a firearm for the enhancement of a personal collection, or for a hobby and/or to sell all or part of a personal collection of firearms within their State of residence without obtaining a dealer's license. What the Senator from New Jersey has not talked about are the laws that govern gun shows. Mr. President, 98 percent of those who are there are dealers licensed under Federal law who must keep records and have those records inspected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. That wasn't mentioned. Maybe it was simply forgotten. But there is no question, the Senator from New Jersey is right; there are private citizens who come to gun shows and engage in discussions with other private citizens and decide to buy or sell their gun or guns. Is that a loophole? No. It is provided for in the 1986 law. It is something this Congress has already decided is right and proper to do as a private citizen--to engage in the sale of his or her private property. And we have been very clear in tightening it up so they could not get beyond the law. But we have also talked about legitimate collectors, and they are very definable within the law. But what is important is that we make sure can clarify even the 2 percent. My amendment works to do that. There are people who collect guns, and now and then want to sell more than just one or two of their guns. Guess where they would go. They would probably go to a gun show where there are a lot of people who are interested in guns. And we would say in my amendment that we would allow them a special license category, that they could become a licensed gun dealer for a short period of time for either the sale of their guns, or for gunsmithing, or for a firearm repair business. This would be a new category of license in the Federal law. This term of ``engage in business'' would not necessarily fit because they were not businesspeople. They didn't make their living from the sale of firearms or firearm equipment or gun cleaning equipment or loading equipment or all of those kinds of things that are the hobbies of millions of Americans. But we recognize that we ought to give them a category, and in that category, in selling their guns, they would be required to keep records. They would be required to keep records, and they could keep them at their homes. Those records must be available for inspection by the ATF because they don't have a business. Remember, those in business keep copious Federal records, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms can inspect them at any time. People who are involved in the sale of guns, and certainly in the importation of guns, all of those kinds of things today, under the 1968 and 1986 laws, are clearly well defined and controlled. But we are saying in these special instances we want to make sure these people do it right. Now, this is more than just to protect the person who purchases; we want to protect the person who sells, because if that gun were to end up being used by a criminal in a criminal act, and an independent person sold it, they could be liable under local law, under State law, under Federal law. Remember, there are 40,000 gun laws in America today--city, State, county and Federal laws--40,000 gun laws. I would like to adjust it a little, and the Senator from New Jersey wants to add one more so that we would have 40,001. We also do something else. We spent a lot of time with Brady, and out of Brady we came up with the national instant check system. We created a large computerized system by which when a gun dealer sells a gun, he can check the background of an individual to see whether he or she is a convicted felon, or if they have some adjudication against their personality that would cause them not to be able to own a gun. We will create a special class of register to be at a gun show so that people engaged in the legal, private sale of guns under Federal law can go to that person and say: I have this individual who wants to buy one of my guns. Here is his or her Social Security number. Run it through your system. Now, what does it do if you comply with these two areas? It creates a safe haven against liability because you have been within the law. But what the Senator from New Jersey didn't say is that if you sell to minors at a gun show, you are breaking the law. If your sale at a gun show went to a felon and it is proven, you are breaking the law. I am talking about private citizens. It is as if he suggested that gun shows are big black holes that criminals congregate in because they can traffic in illegal gun sales. That is false, Mr. President. I don't know of any other way to say it more clearly and abruptly in order to catch the ear of my colleagues. It is not true, and there is no loophole, unless the Senator from New Jersey wants to say that the laws he voted for are loopholes. I doubt that he would want to do that, because I think at least he was here for the passage of one of those laws. I can't honestly tell you whether he voted for or against it. But it did restrict the rights and activities of individuals as they relate to guns. My guess is that he did. But I will let him speak to that issue. What we are talking about here is continuing to shape and refine the gun laws--all 40,000 of them. If my amendment passes, and we create a special new license for a temporary person, or if we create a registrant for gun shows so that private sales can have a background check, under either of the new license or the special registrant, which would be optional--I don't argue that because I don't want to infringe on the right of private citizens under the 1986 law; congress has already spoken to that--it would provide a very clear incentive to individuals to participate as I have suggested. Why? Because, as I have mentioned, if the firearm was later used illegally and caused harm, they would be immune from the civil liabilities of that action, except for a lawsuit based on negligent entrustment, or the negligence per se. That you will never get away from, nor should you. So I think therein lies the difference. Let me talk to one other thing about my colleague's amendment that concerns me a great deal. On page 4 of his amendment he tries to define what a gun show is. I must tell you, very frankly, it demonstrates to me that he doesn't understand collectors, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans who own well more than 50 guns, from antique, Civil War weapons to World War II and World War I weapons, Revolutionary War weapons, are collectors. It doesn't define any of them; it just says 50 firearms or more. What it says to me is that he has suggested by his law that he is going to move from about 35,000 gun shows a year to hundreds of thousands of gun shows. What do I mean by that? If two collectors happen to get together and they happen to own more than 50 guns, and they decide to trade a gun or sell a gun between themselves, they are in violation of the Lautenberg amendment. I think we have to be careful of that, because it says, ``at which two or more persons are offering or exhibiting one or more firearms for sale, transfer, or exchange.'' I know the law, or at least I know this language. I know that when ATF gets through interpreting it, it won't be any narrower than this; it will be considerably broader. What about a gun show promoter? Is that Marriott Corporation, which happens to be housing the gun show for participants next to the convention center, which has a sign up: Gun show participants, come stay at the Marriott, promoting the gun show? I think they would be, by definition of the Lautenberg law. In other words, what I am asking my colleagues today to do is to read the fine print--which is really not so fine at all--for the term ``gun show vendor.'' What I am suggesting is, we don't change the law, that we strengthen the law at hand, that we give some options to the private individual, who still should have the right as a private citizen to sell his or her guns to other private citizens if those actions do not fall within Federal law where they are businesspeople making a profit and are not therefore licensed dealers under the law. It was interesting when the Senator from New Jersey quoted Handgun Control. They got involved in this issue, and they cranked up Americans, talking about this issue some time ago. They talked about ``unlicensed dealers.'' But, all of a sudden, they found out they couldn't use that term, because all of the dealers are licensed by definition of the Federal law. They had to back off. In other words, they were more interested in the political impact than the legality and the correctness of their debate, and how tragic that is. So they backed away from that. But they kept the term ``loophole,'' because somehow it conjures up this idea of this dark escape hatch through which criminals pass. That is not the case. It is not the case in 5,000 legitimate, publicly promoted gun shows which nearly 5 million Americans attend annually in city parks, in legitimate hotels, in State convention centers, and in State fairgrounds around this country. My amendment and the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey are distinctly different. We honor the right of the private citizen. But we give that private citizen options to protect themselves and to access the information system that the taxpayers of this country have spent millions and millions of dollars building so we could have an instant background check to make sure guns didn't get into the hands of convicted felons or other citizens who have adjudicated problems. I have supported that and have strongly fought for it, even though this administration was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century of computer background checks because they wanted the right of control. Therein lies the ultimate difference between these two pieces of legislation. I hope in the course of the debate we can hear a much clearer definition of what a gun show is, because now I have a lot of friends. If I walk into their home and they discuss the idea of trading a gun or selling a gun to me, I might be in a gun show, and that citizen and I would be engaged in an illegal act. Yet, up until now, that would have been a legal act, because of the right of the private nondealer citizen to engage in those kinds of activities. There is no loophole. It is only in the minds of those who see guns to be the evil instead of the problems that citizens have either abiding by the law or dealing with their own frustrations. We have offered a clear alternative, and I think an appropriate alternative, to deal with the question of the 2 percent of sales at gun shows that may on some occasions find themselves in the hands of criminals where that gun was used in illegal activity. Therein lies the difference. I hope it is clear to my colleagues, the importance of sustaining the gun laws we have and guaranteeing that private citizens have the right to engage in gun sales from their private collections and their private ownership, on a limited basis, clearly described by the law, without having to become a federally-licensed firearms dealer, as many would care not to be. I retain the remainder of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Lautenberg amendment that was just offered will be laid aside or should I ask that it be laid aside?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask that the Lautenberg amendment be laid aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have now offered a gun show amendment that I believe is an important counter to the one just offered by Senator Lautenberg. I yield the floor to Senator Lautenberg for the presentation of his amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. President, while the Senator from California is on the floor, I think it is important we understand the facts about which she talks. She is referencing a recent gun show in California where State justice department agents were involved. What she did not say is that every private sale in California, by State law, must be run through the department of justice background check. In other words, the very thing that she wants is now available in California but doesn't work. What is wrong? Why didn't it work? I guess she will have to answer that question. I am not sure. She is saying she wants what the Senator from New Jersey is offering, but they have it in California as State law and it doesn't work.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the chairman of the Judiciary Committee such time as he requires.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield?

Mr. CRAIG. Did I support you in the spousal abuse amendment? Did I support you and vote for it?

Mr. CRAIG. Thank you.

Mr. CRAIG. But the Senator from New Jersey said I did not support it. He is wrong. I voted for it, and I supported him.