Ranking Member Cole Hearing Remarks on H.R. 2377 and H.R. 7910

Hearing

As delivered during today's hearing:

Today's hearing covers two items, both of which are packages of gun control bills.

Before I continue, I would like to express my deep shock and horror particularly at the event two weeks ago in Uvalde, Texas. Nineteen children and two teachers lost their lives as a result of a despicable act of mass violence. I know every member of this committee joins me in mourning with the community and praying for the families, friends and loved ones of the victims.

It is easy to understand the outrage, the anger and the frustration that emerges after events like these. Mass shootings like the one in Uvalde and the one three weeks ago in Buffalo and more recently in Tulsa, in my own home state of Oklahoma, are happening all too often. I understand the desire to do something, anything, to make these tragedies stop.

Sadly, the causes of these events are deeply complex and do not break down easily into a single sound bite. Our nation is in the midst of a widespread mental health crisis. The growing number and frequency of mass shootings are a reminder that our country must take a comprehensive public health approach to gun violence that addresses culture, mental illness, gun safety and regulations that also respect the Second Amendment.

But unfortunately, the measures before us today do not meet that test. Instead of offering a well-reasoned approach, they are sound bites, nothing more. While our colleagues in the Senate are working together and actually negotiating on a package that has a chance at becoming law, the Majority today is putting forward messaging bills that stand no chance of passing the Senate and no chance of becoming law.

I would remind my colleagues on the committee that, contrary to the Majority's rhetoric, Republicans have taken real, concrete steps to address gun violence in a way that also respects the Second Amendment. In the 115th Congress, we worked together to pass the Fix NICS Act, which strengthened the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. In 2019, the Trump Administration issued regulations to ban bump stocks. We have consistently supported funding for enhancing mental health services across the country, both in our annual appropriations bills and as part of the CARES Act in 2020. But there is more to be done.

Sadly, the policy proposals the Majority is advancing today are misguided. I believe all efforts to address violent crime and mass shootings must be deliberative and open to ensure they are effective and that constitutional rights are preserved for all Americans. They should respect the cultural differences between California and Texas, New York and Oklahoma. They should protect the rights of the 99.9 percent of gun owners who are law-abiding citizens, rather than imposing collective punishment on everyone for the sins of the few, horrible though those sins may be.

But instead of pursuing that course, the Majority is instead moving a variety of bills that will limit the rights and due process of law-abiding gun owners. They are seeking to impose regulations from Washington that will limit the rights of everyone. That is deeply unfortunate.

The first package I'll discuss, H.R. 2377, establishes a federal procedure for extreme risk protection orders, or so called red flag laws. This bill, if enacted into law, would allow individuals to seek out a court order requiring a firearm owner to surrender his or her firearms if the court finds the firearm owner poses a risk to themselves or others.

Many states have enacted red flag laws in recent years, and it should remain up to the states to do so if they can do so in a way that protects due process rights and the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. It should not be for Washington to impose such laws on states that neither want nor need them.

Unfortunately, H.R. 2377 does just that. Not only does it impose a one-size-fits-all regime on everyone, but my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have expressed concerns that the bill provides insufficient due process protections for respondents. As such, the bill may violate the due process protections contained in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. There are insufficient mechanisms to protect respondents from unscrupulous individuals seeking to harass otherwise responsible gun owners. This is particularly concerning given the significant legal bills that may result from defending against frivolous applications.

The Majority's other package, H.R. 7910, encompasses eight bills. These include measures that are duplicative -- like the title of the bill banning bump stocks, which are already banned under federal law. This bill fails to take into account the needs of hunters, including subsistence hunters, who rely on these weapons to feed themselves and their families. And it includes no exceptions for those who need firearms for their own security.

I would remind my colleagues that while police in big cities may have short response times, in rural parts of the country, like the area I represent, police may be 30 minutes or an hour away. Citizens have the right to protect themselves, and they have the expectation that they will be able to do so when the police cannot get to them. This bill would limit that right and may have the impact of preventing law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves in times of emergency or crisis.

My colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have expressed additional concerns about both of these packages, which I appreciate the opportunity to hear more about today.

Mr. Chairman, while I understand the compulsion to do something, anything, in the light of tragic events in recent weeks, I believe these bills are deeply misguided. We would be better served to address the root causes of these tragedies -- our national mental health crisis -- and to take a measured, commonsense approach to guns that keeps them out of the hands of wrongdoers but also respects the rights of law-abiding citizens. Our constituents and our Constitution demand no less.

Source