Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the gentleman from Georgia agrees with me that this amendment does insert the Federal Government into the States' concealed-carry permitting process. I would simply say that that admission and the fact that that is the case is enough reason to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment allows States to prohibit nonresidents from carrying a concealed firearm if they did not take part in a firearm safety class that included a live-fire exercise as part of the permitting process. This amendment would, for the first time ever, insert the Federal Government into the State's concealed-carry permitting process. H.R. 822, by contrast, protects each State's ability to set its own eligibility requirements for concealed-carry permits. Thirty-seven States require some degree of firearms training. The gentleman from Georgia's home State, interestingly, does not require any training and, thus, under this amendment, its citizens would not be able to enjoy the Federal grant of reciprocity provided by H.R. 822. The States carry out their training requirements in a number of ways. Some States allow applicants to certify their proficiency through classroom training, while other States recognize prior military or police service to meet these requirements. Virginia, for example, provides eight different ways to meet the training requirements. This amendment is silent on a number of important issues. Is prior military or law enforcement service sufficient to meet the live-fire requirement? Does an applicant need to go through this training each time they renew their permit or is it sufficient to have completed a course the first time they applied? These ambiguities give us more reason to oppose this amendment. We know that concealed-carry laws do reduce crime. A study by John Lott and David Mustard found that when concealed-carry laws went into effect, murders fell by over 7 percent and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent, respectively. These findings have been confirmed by 18 other studies, but none have found that concealed carry increases crime. The benefit of concealed-carry laws should not be measured only by the instances of self-defense, but also by the number of crimes that are prevented from occurring in the first place. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is one of three amendments under consideration today that would allow the States to opt out of the nationwide concealed-carry system that H.R. 822 seeks to establish. This undermines the bill's goal of creating national uniformity in our concealed-carry laws. This amendment provides that every State attorney general, head of police, and secretary of State must certify that the concealed-carry eligibility laws of every other State are substantially similar to their own before the State can participate in this legislation's grant of reciprocity. This is obviously intended to be overly burdensome both to those with concealed-carry permits and to the States themselves. It is also simply a way for State officials who do not support the Second Amendment right to bear arms to decide that their State will not recognize out-of-State concealed-carry permits. The amendment also incorrectly assumes that there are critical differences between the States' eligibility requirements, which is simply not the case. Each State has a vested interest in making sure that those with a propensity towards violence are not granted a concealed-carry permit. Every State conducts a thorough background check so that unqualified individuals will not be able to carry a concealed firearm. The eligibility standards used by the States are more similar than not. The fact that there may be small differences among the States' eligibility laws should not allow a State to prohibit the exercise of Second Amendment rights within its boundaries. Also, Federal and State laws governing the purchase of a firearm must be complied with before a person can even apply for a concealed-carry permit. In order to purchase a firearm or take advantage of the reciprocity extended by H.R. 822, a person convicted of a felony or a domestic violence misdemeanor cannot legally purchase a firearm under Federal law. A person must also be cleared through the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, before they can purchase a firearm. Data from the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report show that right-to- carry States, those that widely allow concealed-carry permits, have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates, 30 percent lower murder rates, 46 percent lower robbery rates, and 12 percent lower aggravated assault rates as compared to the rest of the country. This amendment allows the current patchwork of concealed-carry laws to continue and ignores the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. For those reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment undercuts the uniform eligibility standard that forms the foundation of this legislation. The underlying bill allows individuals with valid State-issued permits to carry a concealed firearm in all other States that also authorize concealed carry. This Second Amendment right to bear arms is, therefore, limited by this amendment. Forty-nine States authorize concealed carry, and 40 of those States have reciprocity agreements with all or some of the other concealed- carry States. But these agreements vary from State to State, creating a patchwork of laws that limits reciprocity, creates confusion for gun owners, and undermines the Second Amendment. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia keeps this patchwork in place by exempting States with reciprocity agreements from the bill. The amendment prevents individuals from taking advantage of nationwide concealed- carry reciprocity unless the State they reside in has a separate agreement with the State they wish to travel to. While I appreciate my colleague's dedication to the concept of States' rights, I think it is misapplied to this legislation. H.R. 822 upholds States' rights in several important ways: First, it does not apply to those jurisdictions that prohibit concealed carry, such as Illinois and the District of Columbia; Second, the bill does not affect a State's right to set eligibility requirements for its own residents; Third, H.R. 822 does not impact State laws governing how concealed firearms are possessed or carried within the various States. All State, Federal, and local laws that prohibit, for example, carrying a concealed handgun in a public building or a place of worship apply equally to any nonresident concealed-carry holder; and Fourth, this legislation does not create any authority for the Federal Government to regulate concealed-carry permits. No Federal agency has any role in the implementation or oversight of this bill which is left, rightfully, up to the States. But, most importantly, this bill respects and protects an individual's right to bear arms while they are traveling. In two recent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment endows individuals with the right to keep and bear arms, and this right is based in large part on the right to defend one's self. Americans don't need to simply defend themselves in their homes. They must also be able to defend themselves outside their homes and while traveling to other States. Eighty percent of violent crime occurs outside the home, according to the Justice Department. Americans cannot fully be empowered to defend themselves if they are prevented from exercising all their Second Amendment rights. H.R. 822 advances the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and I regret, I believe this amendment infringes upon that right. For these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Adams), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The whole point of this bill is to allow those who have concealed- carry permits to freely carry their weapons into other States that also have and recognize concealed-carry permits. If we were to accept this amendment, in my judgment, we would be infringing upon the Second Amendment. I feel that the Second Amendment should be enforced. We ought to interpret it broadly. We ought to allow individuals to take advantage of their Second Amendment rights, travel freely from one State to another without restrictions except for the restrictions that are required locally by their State and local governments. I mentioned awhile ago that one recognition of State prerogatives that we have in the bill is that, for example, if one State does not allow individuals who have concealed-carry permits to go into a public building or a sports event or some other type of location, they are not going to be allowed to do so even if they have a concealed-carry permit from out of State. So, once again, we need to respect the right that is given to us by the Second Amendment in a complete, full way. We need to allow individuals with concealed-carry permits to travel freely from State to State. This underlying bill does that, with one exception: the State of Illinois does not recognize concealed-carry permits. You would not be able to carry a weapon into that State. But except for that one State, we need to embrace the Second Amendment in every way that we can practically, recognize the Supreme Court has done the same thing, and allow individuals to travel with those concealed-carry permits. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. H.R. 822 is important legislation that recognizes that Americans' ability to exercise their fundamental constitutional rights should not disappear at their State's border. The parade of horribles that have been alleged by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are simply not true. Federal law already prohibits felons, domestic abusers, and illegal drug users from possessing a firearm. This legislation does not change that. If a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal law, they cannot carry a concealed weapon under this bill. The arguments we have heard so often today against this legislation are against guns in the hands of violent criminals generally, not against legally permitted concealed weapons. Concealed-carry laws have shown that concealed weapons actually lower violent crime rates in a jurisdiction. H.R. 822 simply permits law-abiding Americans to take their Second Amendment rights with them when they travel. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).