Defending Right to Bear Arms
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today in hosting a Special Order on the Second Amendment, which is both near and dear to my heart and which is also near and dear to the many millions of Americans who cherish their rights and freedoms.
The Second Amendment says: ``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.''
Though it brings me great joy to talk at length about the Second Amendment and the foresight our Founding Fathers had to enshrine this God-given right into the U.S. Constitution, I regret that lawmakers today must still rise to defend it, a matter that was settled 230 years ago.
We must still do this because the Second Amendment is, again, under direct and constant attack from not just gun control activist groups and the left, but now from our very own government within the executive branch.
The Founding Fathers enumerated our right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights to ensure the people had the ability to protect themselves from a treacherous government that sought tyranny over democracy.
We know, Madam Speaker, and our Founding Fathers knew as well, that the first step toward tyranny is to disarm the citizenry.
The irony is not lost on me that the Democrats in control today are trying to do everything they can to gain power and keep power through rule changes and enacting sweeping laws that will forever tilt the scales of that power in their favor.
It was announced just this past week that Republicans and Democrats were able to strike a deal on an infrastructure plan which was heralded as great news and no easy feat in this partisan body. But then the news broke that the Democrats wanted to add to the bipartisan agreement a vast human infrastructure proposal. What is human infrastructure?
So now infrastructure becomes redefined to be anything they want it to be. So if you cannot get something done legitimately via legislation because you don't have the votes, then the new tactic is to accomplish it by redefinition. Just redefine the meaning of the word. So when does this act of redefining everything as we know it stop?
Madam Speaker, I fear that it won't, and I see that to be true when it comes to attacks on the Second Amendment, as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms' newly proposed rules on the definition of a frame or receiver and on pistol stabilizing braces makes that abundantly clear. Through these proposed regulations, the administration is attempting to unilaterally redefine what constitutes a firearm under Federal law and in doing so, restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
In some cases, the courts have not ruled in ATF's way, so ATF wants to change the rules, so the courts have to abide by new regulations more favorable to them. The ATF wants to increase their influence and authority and do it by edict, making it harder on law-abiding citizens to own firearms. They want a new definition for a firearm, one that will greatly expand its meaning and give ATF immense additional authority.
It was Congress who created the law that defines a firearm. ATF does not have that authority. We have a separation of powers issue here that ATF wants to ignore. It seems they don't want the representatives of the people to have a say. No, ATF wants to make the change themselves and thereby increase their own power. This is wrong thinking and it is dangerous.
Before I go further, let me pause for a second and review the legislative history of our key gun laws.
Congress passed the National Firearms Act, or NFA, in 1934; the Gun Control Act, or GCA, in 1968; and the Firearms Owners' Protection Act in 1986. While two of these acts have since been amended, with the GCA amending portions of the NFA, the current definition of the term ``firearm'' can be found in the GCA under 18 U.S.C. 921 and has been effectively used for over 50 years.
But the ATF has decided to expand its authority by proposing broad and arbitrary definitions of industry terms including some that are not even referenced in the definition section of the current law, including the terms, ``privately made firearm,'' and ``complete weapon.''
It is one thing for an agency to use its regulatory authority to clarify terms included in statute for purposes of implementation, but it is clear to me that the AFT has overstepped its authorities by legislating new terms not even referenced in the statute.
Under one of the proposed new regulations, a dummy receiver or an 80 percent lower would now be considered a firearm as it would be covered by the grossly expanded definition of a frame or receiver.
As you can see in the illustration right here, you see the difference between the two. The top is actually functional. The other one on the bottom is a solid block of metal with no ability to accept a firing mechanism, no hammer, no trigger, no selector. And so it is completely nonfunctional.
Now, let's look at those same two from the top-down view. Do you see the difference right here? The bottom one is a solid block of metal, but the top has been machined and has places for a trigger and a hammer and a selector. To make the bottom one work, you have to have the tools and the skill of a manufacturer.
So let's take a closer look at the dummy receiver, Madam Speaker, right here. This solid block of metal doesn't look like a firearm to me and it certainly doesn't work like one either. There is not even a hole right down here for a trigger. The ATF, in its own rule, noted that Congress recognized that regulation of all firearm parts was impractical back when this body was debating the GCA in 1968.
And in fact, Congress moved to make the regulation of the firearms industry more efficient and functional by striking language in the term ``firearm,'' that would have resulted in regulation of any part or parts of a firearm. Just like the bolt in the upper receiver assembly pictured right here, they are not firearms now. But ATF wants to make this a firearm.
But there is another aspect of this redefinition that will go completely unnoticed unless it is challenged, and that is taxation. The more pieces and parts the ATF can call firearms, the more excise tax they can collect. Let that sink in for a minute. Yes, this is another tax hidden in the price of a firearm.
Every firearm manufacturer pays a 10 or 11 percent excise tax to the ATF based on the invoice price when they sell a firearm to a dealer. So through this redefinition, the government is going to make more tax money on the backs of law-abiding citizens. And will Congress have passed a new law to increase taxes? No. The ATF will have created a new stream of tax revenue by simply changing the definition of a firearm frame or receiver. More taxation at the whim of ATF.
The Second Amendment recognizes the right endowed by our creator and codifies it into law. Taxation of a constitutional right is unconstitutional. But if this redefinition is allowed to stand, then this will only be the beginning of more and more taxation on citizens' gun rights. ATF knows that they cannot make the law more stringent without action by Congress, and they know that such support does not exist in Congress. So they try a flanking maneuver and end run to bypass the legislative branch.
They believe that they, along with gun control activists like David Chipman, can use the authority of the ATF, a law enforcement agency, as a political pawn to carry out their anti-Second Amendment agenda.
Madam Speaker, that is exactly what the ATF is doing, as we speak. One day you have a perfectly legal firearm or part, the next day you wake up and your firearm is no longer legal as defined by ATF. Such legality must be left to Congress to decide as it has done through the legislation I previously referenced; not decided by unelected Federal bureaucrats, bureaucrats that may soon be led by a radical gun control activist named David Chipman, unless my colleagues in the Senate oppose his nomination, and I trust they will.
I fear, Madam Speaker, that if my Senate counterparts do not thwart his nomination, we will have more redefining of words led by a partisan, radical gun control activist. I call it legislation by redefinition.
But this abuse of power can be stopped, Madam Speaker, and I invite you to join me in defending our rights by submitting comments directly to the ATF through the Federal Register notice. The two proposed rules I have referenced so far are available online for the public to read and have collectively received more than 180,000 comments so far.
One rule is called, ``Definition of `Frame or Receiver' and Identification of Firearms.'' The other rule is called, ``Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing Braces'.''
Madam Speaker, I believe all Americans, especially gun owners, should inform themselves of the proposed changes and share their thoughts directly with the ATF through the public comment opportunity at www.regulations.gov. It is written right here.
The public comment period will last for just a few more weeks, and I would love to see the total number of submitted comments hit half a million for each proposed rule. I think every single member of this body agrees with my belief that criminals who misuse firearms and perpetuate violent crimes should be held accountable for their actions. And I also hope my colleagues would concur with my belief that law- abiding firearm owners should not be punished because of the illegal acts of a few who knowingly commit evil acts.
But rather than focusing their efforts on punishing criminals who use firearms in the commission of a crime, my Democratic colleagues have, instead, chosen again and again to slowly chip away at the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446 are prime examples of Democrat-led efforts to curtail Americans' Second Amendment rights. That is why I introduced H.R. 1787, the Ensuring SAFETY Act which would mandate the Federal Government respond to a background check in three calendar days and not allow them to delay background checks potentially indefinitely as happened during the pandemic.
Madam Speaker, I am thrilled to have so many of my colleagues join me in standing before you today to speak in defense of the Constitution and the Second Amendment.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), our conference secretary, from the Eighth Congressional District.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson) for introducing the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, a bill that I am proud to support as a cosponsor.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls), my good friend from Texas' 22.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Nehls for his comments. He is truly a staunch supporter of law enforcement, as am I.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), from my home State, who represents Georgia's First District.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Carter for his inspiring words.
Madam Speaker, I ask this: If we grant an 18-year-old individual the right to cast a vote, which decides the fate of our Nation, and can ask them to serve in our Armed Forces, should we not also grant that individual the right to keep and bear arms, which is granted by the Constitution?
I am proud to support a bill introduced by my friend from Kentucky, Mr. Massie, which would restore Second Amendment rights to individuals of voting age.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the good gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Massie for those inspiring words.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the good gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas 21 for his passionate defense of our Second Amendment rights.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those inspiring words. As a fellow combat veteran, I honor his service and I honor his speech this evening.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), who sent out an amicus brief, and I was proud to cosponsor that brief. I thank her for defending our Second Amendment in that brief.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her inspiring words and her work on this very important amicus brief.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), a fiery defender of our Second Amendment because she knows exactly what is at stake.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado's Third District for her excellent remarks and reminding us of the investigation that needs to be initiated on the purchase of a firearm by Hunter Biden, a 4473 that was not filled out correctly, which is a violation of law.
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), representing Pennsylvania's 10th District.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the great State of Pennsylvania for reminding us of how tremendously important the Second Amendment is.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good), my good friend and colleague who represents Virginia's Fifth District.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the good gentleman and my good friend, Representative Good from Virginia, for his inspiring words.
As previously noted, Madam Speaker, the Biden administration has issued a proposed rule that would misinterpret the law and criminalize pistols with stabilizing braces. My friend from Virginia, Mr. Good, has introduced legislation to right this wrong and provide clear and accurate definitions for both rifles and pistols to avoid infringing on individuals' Second Amendment rights, and that is H.R. 3823.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore), my good friend from Alabama's Second District.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I thank the good gentleman from Alabama for those inspiring remarks.
I want to talk about privately-made firearms, which I briefly referenced in my introductory remarks.
Undeniably, the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, has been fundamental to the freedom and security of our Nation since it was first founded in 1776. It is the teeth behind so many of the other rights and liberties we enjoy.
We know this to be true, because history has shown us that when the right to keep and bear arms falls, then the right of free speech and of the free press falls immediately after.
From our very beginning until today, for almost 250 years, people have always been able to build their own firearms. But that right is at risk, considering the White House's gun control agenda.
Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, commercial firearm manufacturers, importers, firearm distributors, and retail firearm dealers had to get Federal Government licenses in order to continue to operate their businesses. Along with those licenses came record-keeping requirements and compliance inspections to ensure they followed the new laws and regulations. This effectively put almost all firearm manufacturers and importers under the direct control of the Federal Government.
History also tells us, Madam Speaker, that after registration comes confiscation. We saw it happen in Russia after the 1917 Communist revolution; in Nazi Germany in 1938; in Australia in 1996; and most recently, in New Zealand in 2019.
In those countries, national registration led to eventual confiscation. Now the ATF wants even privately made firearms under their total control. To make component parts like upper housing and slides, those parts that can hold a firing pin or a bolt or a bolt carrier, to make those simple parts into a serialized firearm will have a chilling effect on privately made firearms.
In fact, it could completely eliminate privately made firearms, finally placing all manufacture of firearms under complete government control. Those fears are genuinely based, and we see that today with ATF trying to legislate by redefining the meaning of words or creating new ones that don't even exist in the written law.
As I noted earlier in the hour, Madam Speaker, I share the passion of my Democrat colleagues in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. But in achieving that shared goal, we cannot trample on the Second Amendment rights of citizens.
If the ATF succeeds in pushing these new definitions across the finish line, Madam Speaker, I fear that we will be opening the floodgates to allowing the agency to regulate our God-given Second Amendment rights right out of existence.
I don't plan to allow that to happen. Not on my watch, Madam Speaker. I don't think my colleagues who filled these seats earlier plan to allow that to happen either.
Together, with the support of the American people, we will never give one inch in the defense of the Second Amendment.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann), my good friend who represents Kansas' First District and introduced H.R. 1758, the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2021.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, while any infringement of our Second Amendment rights is unconstitutional, policymakers have imposed even stricter regulations on some types of firearms, particularly short- barreled rifles. I truly appreciate my friend from Kansas' First District correcting this by introducing the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2021, which will accurately classify short- barreled rifles as semiautomatic rifles, as they should be. They should be semiautomatic rifles and only semiautomatic rifles and regulated as such.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for affording my colleagues and me the opportunity to stand before you today in defense of the Second Amendment and to highlight commonsense, conservative-led proposals to protect and preserve our rights.
Madam Speaker, I thank each of my colleagues for their participation this evening. Their respective constituents should be proud to have such staunch defenders of the Second Amendment representing them in the people's House.
Though several of my colleagues who have introduced proposals could not join us tonight, the American people should know that the solutions highlighted in the last hour are not exhaustive of our efforts to restore, protect, and preserve our God-given right to keep and bear arms. Rather, the solutions presented tonight are just the tip of the iceberg.
Madam Speaker, I again reiterate to you my sincere hope that the American people will take the opportunity to share their thoughts with the ATF on the two proposed regulations that I mentioned, as you can see on this board right here, as they have the potential to upend not only the firearms manufacturing industry but also the legality of guns in homes across the country as we know it.
My constituents sent me to Congress to do everything in my power to protect and uphold the Constitution, and I plan to do just that so long as they entrust me with their voting card.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source