Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley

The Motion to Proceed to the Reid Gun Control Bill

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Mr. President, earlier I met with families from Newtown, Connecticut to discuss the legislation we are currently debating.  It was emotional and difficult for all of us.  I thank them for sharing their stories of their loved ones and their concerns with me.

At the meeting, they called for a debate on the legislation, a debate we are having. Nonetheless, Mr. President, we are in the unusual position of being asked to take a leap into the unknown.  We are being asked to vote to proceed to an uncertain bill.  That bill is not even the bill that we would likely consider if the motion to proceed were successful.  The language on background checks would change.  We have not seen the actual new background check language.  But we are being asked to proceed to the bill anyway.

What we do have is a summary of the proposed background check language.  That summary raises questions. For instance, the summary states that the background check language applies to sales at gun shows and online.  Is a background check required if someone sees a gun at a gun show, then proceeds to purchase the gun outside the gun show, maybe even in a parking lot?  What if someone at a gun show trades but does not sell a gun?

And it applies beyond gun shows.  If a private person advertises a gun, then the transfer would have to go through a licensed dealer, at a price.  So if someone takes out an ad to sell their gun in the local Farm Bureau newsletter or in their church bulletin, they would have to find a licensed gun dealer to conduct a background check before sale could go through.  That is quite a limitation on private sales and ownership of guns.  And it takes time in many places in this country to find that gun dealer to conduct that background check.

The summary is not specific: which private sales would be exempt from the bill's background check requirements?  The summary states that background checks are "required for sales at gun shows and online while securing certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights for law abiding citizens."  That should cause everyone concern.  If the background check language secures "certain aspects of 2nd Amendment rights," then what aspects of 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens does it not secure?

The summary says that the new language exempts "temporary transfers."    What is the difference between a "temporary" and a permanent transfer?  How would a law-abiding citizen know whether the transfer would be considered to be "temporary"?  What if the person making the transfer thought at the time it was made that the transfer would be temporary but later decides that it should be for a longer time?

And the summary claims that it will close the "gun show and other loopholes."  What "other loopholes"?  We should be skeptical about what rights could be infringed based on that claim.         It is important to understand that there is no such thing as a "gun show loophole."  Under existing law, background checks are required for gun purchases from a federally licensed firearms dealer.  This is true whether the purchase is made at a gun show or any other location.

Also, under existing law, gun purchases made through someone who is not a federally licensed firearms dealer do not require a background check.  This is true whether the sale is made at a gun show or not.  Whether a sale is made at a gun show is therefore irrelevant to whether a background check is required.

There is one rule for sales from licensed dealers and another for private sales.  But under the new language, not all private sales will be treated the same.  Some private sales will require background checks and others will not.  That distinction will create, not close, a loophole.  No longer would all private sales be treated the same.  Some private sales will require background checks and others will not.  There will be political pressure then to say that all private sales should be covered - universal background checks in other words.

And we heard testimony in the Judiciary Committee, and the Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice has written, that universal background checks can be enforced only if gun registration is mandated.

Now it has been said on the floor recently that background check legislation cannot lead to gun registries because federal law prohibits that.     But current federal law can be changed.  And the language currently before us requires recordkeeping, a step toward registration.

Although the sponsor of that language said that the bill expressly provided that no registry could be created, the bill contains no such language at present.  The sponsor was misinformed about his own bill.  He admitted that the current background check language was not yet ready for consideration and needed clarifications that so far have not been forthcoming.

We should have answers to these and other questions before we should proceed to the bill.

And we should be wary of going to a bill when various senators have announced their intention to offer amendments to that bill that in my judgment raise serious constitutional questions under the Second Amendment.

Mr. President, how can we responsibly proceed to a bill that contains language that even its sponsor admits is not ready for consideration?

 -30-

(DES MOINES)  - Gov. Terry E. Branstad denied the following application for commutation:

Darrell Bizzett, age 64, committed his crime on September 1, 1970, in Woodbury County.  He is currently serving a life sentence for Murder - 1^st degree.

Rodney Borushaski, age 40, committed his crimes on August 12, 1996, in Polk County.  He is currently serving two life sentences for Murder - 1^st degree.

Raymond T. Freie, Jr., age 71, committed his crime on August 28, 1981, in Hancock County.  He is currently serving a life sentence for Murder - 1^st degree.

Mark Greiman, age 51, committed his crime on July 27, 1998, in Cerro Gordo County.  He is currently serving a twenty-give year sentence for Robbery - 1^st degree (85%).

Kevin Johnson, age 58, committed his crime on June 29, 1980, in Pottawattamie County.  He is currently serving a life sentence for Murder - 1^st degree.

Ed Shaker Nassif, age 43, committed his crime on September 1, 1990, in Linn County.  He is currently serving a life sentence for Murder - 1^st degree.

Dee Jay Radeke, age 49, committed his crime on May 31, 1991, in Linn County.  He is currently serving a life sentence for Kidnapping - 1^st degree.

Robert C. Richey, age 68, committed his crime on May 8, 1996, in Bremer County.  He is currently serving a life sentence for Murder - 1^st degree.

Arthur Rogers, age 40, committed his crimes January 27, 2000, in Scott County.  He is currently serving two twenty year sentences for Robbery - 2^nd degree (85%).

Richard T. Steltzer, age 69, committed his crime on February 6, 1979, in Warren County.  He is currently serving a life sentence for Kidnapping - 1^st degree.

The headlines would be comical if they weren't so sad - and numerous.

"YOUNG WOMAN SCAMS LOVE STRUCK ELDERLY MAN OUT OF $200,000" (Elk Grove, Calif., January 2013)

"Just Google and you'll find all kinds of news stories about men who willingly give up their cash, their luxury cars, even an ex-wife's diamond ring," as in the Elk Grove case, says Charles D. Martin, author of "Provocateur," (www.provocateurbook.com), a novel about smart, beautiful women and the power they wield over men.

"As men, we never like to admit that we may be outsmarted by a woman - but the truth is, it is happening all the time!"

And it's getting worse, for men.

"Women are far outpacing men in numbers of college degrees. They now outnumber men, earning almost 60 percent of college degrees," Martin says. "And while that doesn't necessarily make them 'smarter' than men, it sure does add to their advantage."

In addition women have other (obvious) advantages.

"In the presence of a sexy woman, men lose their ability to think or act rationally," Martin says. "That's an enormous advantage for women! Men do not realize that it is women that are in charge of the mating process."

How can men level the playing field? Martin has some suggestions:

• Recognize the predator - and the prey. If you are an older gentlemen, particularly one with some status or affluence and a young, attractive woman comes on to you ... be on guard. She probably has nefarious, not amorous, motives. Keep your pants zipped and your wallet stowed until you are totally persuaded that her affection for you is genuine.

• Remember, they don't have to be young to be dangerous. The woman arrested in the Elk Grove, Calif., case was 30 years old. There are also recent news stories about a 54-year-old woman stealing more than $85,000 from a 93-year-old man, promising him a "big payoff." In another case, a 45-year-old woman had a 60-year-old man paying for her elective surgeries, limousines, even a $1,000 dog. She was arrested in December. "They may be moms or grandmoms, but they're still women," Martin says.

• Even if you are happily married, you are still vulnerable. Beware the "perfect storm," which occurs as a man ages and tries to hang on to his virility, just as his high school sweetheart is also showing signs of wear. That makes him vulnerable to a younger female with ulterior motives. If a sexy woman comes on to you, get away fast.  These "Provocateurs" can get the best of you in a nanosecond.

About Charles D. Martin

Charles Martin runs a hedge fund, Mont Pelerin Capital, LLC, and serves on the investment committees of prominent universities. An established business writer, his first novel focuses on the intrigue that often exists between alpha females that take on - and conquer - dominant males. Martin lives with his wife in a coastal town south of Los Angeles.

Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa

Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee

The Motion to Proceed to Reid Gun Legislation

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Click here for video of the speech.

Mr. President, earlier today, I met with families from Newtown, Connecticut to discuss the legislation we are currently debating.  It was emotional and difficult for all of us.  I thank them for sharing their stories of their loved ones and their concerns with me.  I hope my colleagues will also consider meeting with these families.

At the meeting, they called for a debate on the legislation, a debate we are having.  And under the new procedures available under Senate Resolution 15, the Majority Leader can move to proceed to a measure and vote on some amendments.  A vote against the motion to proceed does not cut off debate or votes on amendments.

Nonetheless, Mr. President, we are in the unusual position of being asked to take a leap into the unknown.  We are being asked to vote to proceed to an uncertain bill.  That bill is not even the bill that we would likely consider if the motion to proceed were successful.  The language on background checks would change.  Remarkably, if the language changed, it would be replaced with language that does not now exist.

The world's greatest deliberative body should not operate in this fashion.

In the Judiciary Committee, four bills were considered separately.  There was no consensus.  Three of them have now been combined.  But they are not ready for consideration.  At the time, the sponsor of the background check bill said it was not ready.  There are numerous problems with that bill.

Movement of firearms from one law-abiding citizen to another would be legal or illegal based on arbitrary distinctions that citizens could not be expected to know.  This is true even though when this language was the subject of a hearing in a previous Congress, a witness pointed out the problems.  But no changes have been made to address those issues.  Even an official with the ACLU says that criminal laws should give more guidance to citizens.

The bill operates in a way that would make gun safety efforts more difficult.  That does not make any sense.

The bill requires recordkeeping for private sales.  That is a step toward gun registration.  Indeed, we heard testimony in the Judiciary Committee that "universal" background checks cannot be effective without gun registration.

And the ACLU official is right to be concerned about the threat to privacy that the background check language presents.

He notes that the government would possess information concerning gun owners that it would not be required to destroy within 24 hours, as it must for current background checks.

He also points out that the bill contains none of the restrictions in current law that prevent other parts of the government from using the database for purposes beyond why the information was supposedly obtained.

The background check provision is also not ready for consideration because of the new federal felony that it creates.  If a law-abiding gun owner's gun is lost or stolen, he or she would be required to report that to both the Attorney General and appropriate local officials within 24 hours.  At the markup, I asked a number of questions of the bill's sponsor about how the offense would work.  For instance, who would pay for the additional law enforcement personnel who would take those calls?  What would a citizen's legal obligation be if the gun were misplaced rather than lost?  What would determine when the loss occurred that started the 24 hour period?

The sponsor said that these issues would be clarified.  So far, however, they have not been.  So law-abiding citizens will not know whether they are acting in compliance with the law or face a 5 year jail sentence.  The issues have not been clarified, but we are being asked to proceed to the bill anyway.

This new offense criminalizes inaction.  That is a grave threat to freedom.  Except for filing tax returns or registering for the draft, we punish bad actions.  We do not punish inaction. This new crime punishes failure to act.  And it only applies to those who lawfully own their guns.  A criminal whose gun is stolen is not required to report that fact.  With this offense, law-abiding citizens can be turned into felons, but felons cannot commit a crime.  Under this new offense, law-abiding citizens might be looking at five years in jail for doing nothing.  And all that is necessary for the gun to be subject to the reporting requirement is that the gun once moved in interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court has outlined three categories of situations in which Congress can rely on the Commerce Clause.  This is not one of them.

If Congress can do this, it can make people take all sorts of action simply because they owned a product that once moved in interstate commerce.  Like bread.  Or soap.  And they can face jail time if they do not do what Congress demands that they do.  Even the individual mandate from Obamacare only established a penalty, not a prison sentence.  I do not think 90 percent of Americans would support this universal background check bill if they read it.

The motion to proceed also goes to a bill that contains language on straw purchasing and gun trafficking.  I voted to report that bill to the Senate floor.  Many changes were made to that bill at my behest.  An amendment of mine was adopted.  At the time, I expressed concerns.  I spoke of my desire to have those concerns worked out before the bill went to the floor.  I said I would not necessarily support that bill on the floor if those concerns were not responded to.  They have not been addressed so far.  And those provisions were tied to the ever-changing background check provisions.

The whole process makes me wonder whether the efforts to pass a bill on this subject really are serious.  It seems that if a half-baked bill is brought up, the majority can be sure that they can force Republicans not to agree to proceed to it.  It seems like that may be just what they want to happen.   If so, that is a very cynical way to treat a very serious issue.

Mr. President, how can we responsibly proceed to a bill that contains language that even its sponsor admits is not ready for consideration?