[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 83 (Wednesday, May 17, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2389-H2394]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SERVICE WEAPON PURCHASE ACT
General Leave
Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 3091.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 398 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3091.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from California (Mr. Mike Garcia) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1223
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3091) to allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase
retired service weapons, and for other purposes, with Mr. Mike Garcia
of California in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry) and the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry).
Mr. FRY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise to call on my colleagues to support H.R. 3091, the
Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act.
This week is National Police Week, and I applaud the majority's
dedication to supporting and celebrating our Nation's law enforcement
officers who risk their lives every single day to keep us safe.
This bill is just one legislative commitment we are taking to support
our brave men and women in blue. This legislation would allow current
Federal law enforcement officers in good standing to purchase a retired
service weapon at market value from a Federal agency.
Current Federal regulations require all Federal agencies, such as the
U.S. Secret Service or U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to destroy
weapons after they have been retired from Federal use. That means that
these retired firearms must be crushed, cut, broken, or deformed to
ensure that they are rendered completely inoperable and cannot be used
again.
According to the Fraternal Order of Police, multiple law enforcement
agencies are currently in the process of replacing their service
weapons.
This means that 20,000 firearms would be destroyed, an $8 million
cost to the taxpayers. Taxpayers are paying for those weapons twice--
when they go into circulation and when they are retired.
Not only does this legislation have the potential to save millions of
dollars in waste, but it would offset the cost of purchasing new
weapons and fund other agency expenses.
I thank the cosponsors of the bill and strongly urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of H.R. 3091.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, Federal regulations for the management of Federal property
currently prohibit an agency from disposing of functional or repairable
firearms by selling them. Under these regulations, when an agency no
longer has a need for a firearm, it can transfer it to another law
enforcement entity or destroy it.
This regulation has served the important goal of ensuring that
federally owned firearms do not fall into the wrong hands, but it also
misses an opportunity to save money by selling an unneeded firearm to
the law enforcement officer who has been using it.
Last Congress, our colleague and former Orlando Police chief
Congresswoman Val Demings recognized the opportunity for improvement in
these regulations. She introduced the original version of this
legislation, which allows a Federal agency to sell a retired handgun to
the law enforcement officer who had been using it, transferring it from
a service weapon to a weapon in the hands of a responsible gun owner
who is trained to use it.
Congresswoman Demings' legislation included two improvements that,
unfortunately, have been removed from the current version of the bill.
Her version required the law enforcement officer who was purchasing
the gun to undergo a background check. This is a commonsense
requirement, given that an officer would undergo a standard background
check to purchase the weapon from any other sellers.
Most background checks are practically instantaneous, often about 30
seconds. I do not think that 30 seconds is too long to wait to ensure
that a gun does not fall into the wrong hands.
While I think it is notable that the majority stripped this
reasonable and effortless requirement, the current version of the bill
does require a purchasing officer to be in good standing.
While this is not as thorough as Congresswoman Demings' legislation,
the good-standing requirement should prevent unlawful transfers in most
cases.
Ms. Demings' bill also included a sense of Congress that the funds
received by the government from selling a retired service weapon should
be used to support evidence-based gun violence prevention or gun safety
education and
[[Page H2390]]
training programs. Again, this is a thoughtful provision that would
have directed these funds toward a critical need in our communities and
would have improved public safety.
This provision should be totally noncontroversial, but our Republican
colleagues have stripped it from the bill. The only logical conclusion
is that they do not want a single additional dollar to go to gun
violence prevention, even as it continues to tear our communities apart
and imperil the lives of law enforcement officers.
While I wish the majority had left Congresswoman Demings' bill
intact, I nonetheless support this weakened version of her work.
I want to make it very clear that if any of the Republican poison
pill amendments pass, I will have to encourage my colleagues to vote
``no.''
The base text of this bill allows limited transfers of handguns to
active Federal law enforcement officers in good standing for fair
market value. The amendments subvert this purpose by allowing those who
are not active law enforcement to purchase a weapon without a
background check, allowing the government to sell military-style
assault weapons without a background check and forcing taxpayers to
subsidize these gun sales by selling them below their fair market
value.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge all Members to oppose these amendments.
I note, however, that I support Ms. Jacobs' very helpful amendment to
further define the good-standing requirement and help ensure that
retired weapons are only transferred to those who can be trusted with
them.
This bill had bipartisan support in committee, so it is unfortunate
that the majority would rather politicize National Police Week with a
radical gun agenda than pass a reasonable bipartisan bill.
If the poison pill amendments fail, I will continue to support the
bill. If any of them pass, I must urge my colleagues to oppose this
legislation.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mr. FRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today during National Police Week
in strong support of the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon
Purchase Act.
This bill, which I was proud to help move through the Judiciary
Committee, is a practical measure and a declaration of our unwavering
support for the Nation's law enforcement officers. They are the bedrock
of our communities, and they ensure peace, order, and safety.
By allowing Federal officers the opportunity to purchase retired
service weapons, we can save taxpayer dollars and ensure officers have
firearms with which they are the most comfortable.
This bill and others like it this week present a clear question: Will
we stand up for our police or will we stand idly by as unwarranted and
inappropriate criticism continues to be thrown their way?
I know what my answer is. I stand with our police.
I extend my gratitude to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry),
my colleague and good friend, for introducing this bill. I urge my
colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this bill.
Let's send an unmistakable message to our law enforcement officers
across this Nation: We see you. We appreciate you. We stand by you. I
particularly thank my friends and individuals in law enforcement that
I've known so well over so many years in the great State of New Jersey
for the work that they do. I am proud of them. I am proud of what they
represent, and I am thankful for their sacrifice.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3091.
We need to address police brutality and work on police accountability
as our country continues to reckon with instances of brutality and
distrust of law enforcement officers.
Tyre Nichols, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd's legacies demand more
of us.
I am disappointed to see the exclusion of two key measures from
similar legislation introduced by Val Demings last Congress.
I offered an amendment that would disqualify an officer from
purchasing their weapon after retirement if they have instances of
misconduct or unethical behavior in their personnel file. The good-
standing qualification in this bill is too subjective to accurately
protect Americans, but my commonsense amendment was not accepted, and
Republicans are not bringing it up for a vote.
We need increased police accountability and community-based ideas
around policing. We need to keep people alive, including law
enforcement, and rebuild community trust.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chair, I hope my GOP colleagues will join me
in finding ways to create safer communities for everyday Americans
because that is what all Americans want. They want to live and work and
worship in communities that will keep them safe and build
relationships, new relationships with law enforcement that understand
and see them.
Mr. FRY. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation improves government efficiency by
allowing a Federal agency to sell a retired handgun to the law
enforcement officer who had been using it. This was a good idea when it
was introduced last Congress on a bipartisan basis by former
Congresswoman Val Demings, and it continues to be one.
I am disappointed that Republicans have chosen to move forward with a
weaker version of her bill. Nonetheless, I support its passage unless
it is further weakened by the Republican poison pill amendments I
referred to in my opening statement.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud that this legislation passed
favorably out of the Judiciary Committee last week and already has a
considerable number of cosponsors.
As we celebrate, honor, and remember our men and women in uniform
during National Police Week, I am proud to bring this legislation to
the House floor for a vote that will allow Federal law enforcement
officers to purchase retired service weapons and prevent wasteful
spending.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, it shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 118-5. That amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 3091
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Law Enforcement
Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act''.
SEC. 2. PURCHASE OF RETIRED HANDGUNS BY FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of General Services
shall establish a program under which a Federal law
enforcement officer may purchase a retired handgun from the
Federal agency that issued the handgun to such officer.
(b) Limitations.--A Federal law enforcement officer may
purchase a retired handgun under subsection (a) if--
(1) the purchase is made during the six-month period
beginning on the date the handgun was so retired; and
(2) with respect to such purchase, the officer is in good
standing with the Federal agency that employs such officer.
(c) Cost.--A handgun purchased under this section shall be
sold at the fair market value for such handgun taking into
account the age and condition of the handgun.
[[Page H2391]]
(d) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``Federal law enforcement officer'' has the
meaning given that term in section 115(c)(1) of title 18,
United States Code;
(2) the term ``handgun'' has the meaning given that term in
section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code; and
(3) the term ``retired handgun'' means any handgun that has
been declared surplus by the applicable agency.
The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order, except those printed in part B of House
Report 118-59. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jacobs
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part B of House Report 118-59.
Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 2, insert after line 6 the following (and redesignate
provisions accordingly):
(c) Agency Procedures.--Not later than 1 year and 30 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, each Federal agency
that is required to make a determination under subsection
(b)(2), shall by rule establish procedures for making such a
determination.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 398, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Jacobs) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to protect public safety and
honor the original intent of this bill through a simple, commonsense
amendment.
Many of us on both sides of the aisle agree with the goal of H.R.
3091, to allow Federal law enforcement officers to buy retired
handguns, many of which are already required to be destroyed.
However, an oversight could enable domestic abusers, including those
subject to restraining orders, to get firearms, which we all know can
have deadly consequences.
Police officers are human. They aren't immune from mental illness,
domestic and family conflict, and other stressors that can lead to
tragedies. We can and should have guardrails to prevent those
tragedies.
That is why my amendment simply ensures that each Federal law
enforcement agency has procedures for determining whether an officer is
in good standing to buy a firearm. Agencies would have the flexibility
to tailor those determinations based on the qualifications of each
agency, but these guidelines should be clear and concise.
Existing Federal law already carves out special treatment for law
enforcement officers by allowing them to have a gun even if they have a
domestic violence restraining order. That is dangerous.
All gun owners should meet the same standard, and law enforcement
agencies shouldn't consider an officer who is perpetrating violence
against a family or household member to be in good standing and able to
buy a handgun.
While I am thankful that the Committee on Rules supported my
amendment, I am disappointed that they rejected my other amendment and
several of my colleagues' amendments to provide additional guardrails
for this buyback program.
With this amendment, we have an opportunity to improve this
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to save
lives, protect public safety, and honor those who put their lives on
the line for our communities.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRY. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRY. Mr. Chair, good standing is already universally understood
by all Federal agencies. If an officer has been suspended, they
surrender their badge and gun and do not have law enforcement
authorities.
This is not a new concept. In fact, the Law Enforcement Officers
Safety Act, signed into law 19 years ago, requires a finding of good
standing by the agencies in order for retired officers to be eligible
to carry a concealed weapon.
By requiring an agency to adopt standards to determine good standing
for the purposes of this bill, her amendment would establish a double
standard where a law enforcement officer could be in good standing for
the purposes of their job, but the agency considers them not to be in
good standing for the purposes of purchasing a retired service weapon.
This potential two-track system is ripe for abuse.
For these reasons, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I will just note that there is a loophole
where law enforcement officers can keep a gun even when they have a
domestic violence restraining order.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, when Congresswoman Demings introduced her
superior version of this legislation last Congress, it would require
the law enforcement officer who is purchasing the gun to undergo a
background check. This is a commonsense requirement, given that an
officer would undergo a standard background check to purchase the
weapon from any other sellers.
My colleagues submitted amendments that would add this background
check requirement back in. It is unfortunate that that strong and
reasonable amendment was not made in order.
This amendment, the Jacobs amendment, does the next best thing. It
would further define the good-standing requirement and help ensure that
retired weapons are only transferred to those who can be trusted with
them.
This amendment will help close the gap between what a NICS check
would reveal and what an employing Federal law enforcement agency would
find in making a determination that an officer is in good standing.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I would just like to add that by requiring
agencies to have procedures to determine whether an officer is in good
standing, this amendment would ensure that officers are treated fairly
and only denied the purchase of their handgun for good and objective
reasons.
By establishing a deadline for Federal law enforcement agencies to
establish these procedures, this amendment will ensure that an agency
is not caught off guard when an officer who may have issues related to
performance or behavior requests to purchase a weapon.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRY. Mr. Chair, I will just reiterate what we previously
discussed.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACOBS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. McCormick
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part B of House Report 118-59.
Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 2, line 8, strike ``fair market value'' and insert
``salvage value''.
Page 2, line 16, strike ``and'' at the end.
Page 2, line 19, strike the period at the end and insert
``; and''.
Page 2, insert after line 19 the following:
(4) the term ``salvage value'' means the value of an asset
after it has become useless to the owner or the amount
expected to be obtained when a fixed asset is disposed of at
the end of its useful life
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 398, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. McCormick) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
[[Page H2392]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, I am here today to discuss my amendment to
H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase
Act.
Currently, firearms from agencies such as the Secret Service are
destroyed once they are retired from service or replaced with new
models. This is wasteful and makes no sense. Many law enforcement
officers have a special connection to their firearms they use in the
line of duty. They would like to take them home to cherish as family
heirlooms.
It is only fair to allow the courageous men and women of law
enforcement to purchase their service weapons upon retirement, and we
should let them do that at a low cost because these are going to be
thrown out anyway.
This shouldn't be a revenue-raising scheme for the government. Our
law enforcement officers should be able to keep their firearms at a
reasonable cost.
My amendment simply changes H.R. 3091 by changing the term ``fair
market value'' to ``salvage value,'' which is what would be done to the
weapons anyway, salvaging it.
Salvage value is defined as: ``The value of the asset after it
becomes useless to the owner or the amount expected to be obtained when
a fixed asset is disposed of at the end of its useful life,'' which is
exactly what is happening here.
This definition is for the lawyers, appraisers, and accountants, but
what I want to talk about is what it means to our law enforcement
officers.
This change would allow them to purchase their retired service
firearms, which in many cases they discharged in the line of duty to
save lives, at a lower cost than the current ``fair market value,''
which it would not be disposed at.
Under current policy, these firearms are destroyed, so the purchase
is at salvage value by definition. It would still increase government
revenues, because you are actually purchasing it at the same amount and
you wouldn't have to actually have the expense of salvaging it, while
allowing Federal law enforcement officers to purchase the service
weapons that have protected them throughout their careers at a fair
price.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, when Congresswoman Demings introduced a superior version
of this legislation last Congress, it was premised on the principle of
making the most of taxpayer dollars and recouping the values of weapons
that were not at the end of their usable life.
This amendment would require these weapons not at the end of their
usable life to be sold at their salvage value, which by its terms, is
below the fair market value of these weapons. This prevents the agency
from recouping the full value of the weapon.
The effect of this amendment is to sell firearms at a discount funded
by taxpayers. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize gun sales,
which is contrary to the intended purpose of this bill that was
introduced last Congress and is also contrary to the intent of the bill
in the form it unanimously passed in the Judiciary Committee.
Taxpayers should be funding the government, not subsidizing gun
sales. This amendment is contrary to the intent of the bill, and I urge
my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, the basic premise is a misunderstanding of
what this is about.
First of all, the weapon would otherwise be destroyed. The only money
that would come from it is either the money that is spent on destroying
the weapon or the money that was obtained from it by destroying the
weapon which would be salvage monetary price, which would be
approximately $100 for an average Glock. That is weapon scrap. That is
what it is worth. That is how much you would get back from the
government.
The gentleman from New York talks about the government supplementing
police officers who served an entire career. I was a career military
person with over 20 years in the military. My father was a deputy
sheriff. This isn't a money-making scheme. As a matter of fact, it is
just the opposite. This isn't for the government to make money off of.
This is to do the right thing.
This is at best a neutral bill. This shouldn't be about the military
people who just spent 20 years of their life paying money to expand the
coffers of the American government when otherwise it would be worth
about $100 as scrap metal.
The misrepresentation that this should be money that our retirees
spend on a weapon that would otherwise be destroyed--and nothing else
would be done with that weapon, by the way. When the gentleman talks
about fair market value, the fair market value in the market for this
is salvage. It is what would be done with the weapon to begin with. The
misnomer, the misrepresentation that retired officers that have spent
their entire career protecting this Nation, bonding with something that
saves their lives and protects other people, is actually kind of
offensive to me as a guy who has carried around a service rifle and a
service pistol, when I was overseas, in harm's way, the same way my
father carried around his service pistol in harm's way.
This is not to make money for the government. This is to do the right
thing by those police officers and those law enforcement individuals
who served their entire life doing nothing but serving their community.
That is what this is about and nothing else.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I think the gentleman misunderstands the bill.
This bill is not when the officer retires. It is when the gun is
retired. When the gun is retired, perhaps because the law enforcement
agency is upgrading to a more modern gun, it can be sold, and the money
goes to the taxpayers, obviously. If it is not repairable, it can then
be scrapped.
This amendment would say that it can't be done. It would say that you
could not recover the full market value of the weapon, and there is no
reason the taxpayers shouldn't recover that.
The amendment is an antitaxpayer amendment. It is not for the officer
when he retires. It is when the weapon is retired, which may be before
or long after the officer retires. It has nothing to do with that. So
the amendment would simply cost the taxpayers money for no purpose at
all, and I, therefore, oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, I am going to define once again what this
bill is about because I disagree wholeheartedly. If it is at the end of
its service life, if it is no longer useful, it is going to be
salvaged. Salvaged. We are defining what is happening at the end of a
useful life value. Salvaged. It is going to be destroyed. That is what
the government will do with it. The government is not going to sell it;
the government is going to salvage it. The government is not going to
put it on the market, the fair market for a used weapon, they are going
to destroy it.
Therefore, the value of the weapon is whatever it is destroyed for.
That is the definition. That is clear in this bill, and that has been
defined. Trying to mislead the public on what this is about is, once
again, offensive to me.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. McCormick).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Luttrell
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part B of House Report 118-59.
Mr. LUTTRELL. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
[[Page H2393]]
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 2, line 6, insert ``or employed'' before ``such
officer''.
Page 2, line 13, insert before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``, and includes a retired Federal law enforcement
officer''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 398, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Luttrell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. LUTTRELL. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R.
3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Service Weapon Purchase Act.
My amendment would expand those who can purchase retired service
weapons to include those who have served their country faithfully and
retired from Federal law enforcement. This amendment will allow for the
brave men and women who retired from service in Federal law enforcement
the ability to protect themselves and our communities, if necessary.
By eliminating bureaucratic red tape currently preventing Federal law
enforcement officers and retirees from purchasing their service
weapons, we are equipping them with the ability to respond to
emergencies equipped with the weapon they are well acquainted with. The
best deterrent to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
This measure will further protect the Second Amendment rights of our
Federal law enforcement officers who have displayed valor and courage
in making the ultimate sacrifice to keep us safe and protect our
communities.
Those who have served our Nation as law enforcement officers with
dignity and honor and retired in good standing ought to have the same
rights of those currently serving.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, when Congresswoman Demings introduced her superior version
of this legislation last Congress, it required the law enforcement
officer who was purchasing the gun to undergo a background check. This
is a commonsense requirement, given that an officer would undergo a
standard background check to purchase the weapon from many other
sellers.
My colleagues submitted amendments that would add this background
check requirement back in. It is unfortunate that that strong and
reasonable amendment was not made in order.
The bill as passed in committee allows sales only to officers in good
standing.
This amendment allows retired Federal law enforcement officers to
also be eligible to purchase surplus service weapons without the usual
NICS background check or a certification of good standing.
This amendment is contrary to existing law and could allow prohibited
purchasers to buy a handgun. Retired officers have no standing with an
agency. They are not subject to any of the oversight and employment
rules of active Federal law enforcement.
With this amendment, someone could retire, be convicted of a felony,
and then purchase a handgun from the Federal Government, even though
they would fail a NICS check because a NICS check is not required.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUTTRELL. Mr. Chair, we are talking about the same men and women
that went through the rigorous background check before they retired. We
are talking about the same men and women that served our country
honorably. This amendment speaks in good faith and good faith only.
I agree with my colleagues across the aisle that if there is an
individual that has done something nefarious, absolutely, but this
amendment alone speaks to the good faith of those men and women who
served in uniform.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, a police officer can retire for many reasons.
One of them is that he is being forced out for misconduct. An officer
who is forced out for misconduct should not be permitted to buy a gun
without a background check. The background check might show the
misconduct--would show the misconduct that forced them out. If he
committed a felony, it would show that.
Under this amendment, a retired officer who was pushed out because of
bad conduct, who was pushed out because he could not be trusted with a
handgun, who subsequently commits a felony could still purchase a
handgun without a background check. That is dangerous to the public and
makes no sense at all.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUTTRELL. Mr. Chair, anyone who is guilty of what my colleague
across the aisle is saying would have to go through--we are talking
about weapon systems that are retired out of the Federal system and
good-standing law enforcement officers purchasing those weapon systems.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, the gentleman is mistaken. There is a
difference between the officer and the gun. The gun is being retired.
The officer may have committed a felony--the ex-officer, I should say,
may have committed a felony, may have been forced out for bad conduct,
and under this amendment would be permitted to purchase the gun without
a background check that would show his felony or whatever conduct
caused him to be pushed out. It is dangerous.
We are not talking about an officer upon retirement buying his gun.
We are talking about an ex-officer who may have committed a felony, who
may have been forced out for dangerous conduct now being permitted to
purchase a gun without a background check that would show that this is
a dangerous character.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LUTTRELL. Mr. Chair, in closing, I urge my colleagues across the
aisle to support this sensible measure that will afford law-abiding
retired law enforcement officers the same treatment as those currently
serving as defined in this bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Luttrell).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Rosendale
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
part B of House Report 118-59.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 1, line 4, strike ``handguns'' and insert
``firearms''.
Strike ``handgun'' each place it appears and insert
``firearm''.
Page 2, line 16, insert before the semicolon the following:
``, excluding any machinegun (as defined in section
921(a)(24) of such title) not lawfully possessed before
section 922(o) of such title took effect''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 398, the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Rosendale) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, in its current state, H.R. 3091 allows
Federal law enforcement to purchase retired handguns from their agency,
allowing the agency to recover some of the original costs of those
handguns. However, handguns are not the only weapons in our Federal
officers' arsenal.
In recent years, about 30 percent of new firearm purchases by Federal
agencies were rifles and shotguns. Current surpluses also show that
there are similar numbers of pistols and rifles in agency stockpiles.
My amendment would allow for our law enforcement officers to purchase
these weapons, as well, so long as the rifle or shotgun is allowed
legally for civilian use.
[[Page H2394]]
The current practice of destroying retired firearms costs taxpayers
money when they could be providing a service to their Federal law
enforcement and creating some revenue in the process.
Many of our Nation's law enforcement are avid recreation and sports
shooters in their free time, and they deserve the added benefit of
being allowed to purchase high-quality firearms at a reduced cost.
Americans trust police to protect them with these very firearms every
single day. Why should these well-trained officers not have the right
to defend their own family with these same weapons.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1300
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment expands the types of weapons
officers are allowed to purchase to include all retired firearms. The
amendment radically extends the bill and runs counter to its original
purpose.
This amendment would allow semiautomatic assault weapons, sniper
rifles, and military-grade weaponry to be purchased without a
background check. While Federal law enforcement has a need for these
weapons, they have no place in our communities.
Though the amendment excludes machine guns, it does not exclude other
firearms subject to heightened regulation under the National Firearms
Act, such as short-barreled rifles and even grenade launchers. The
Federal Government should not be selling these dangerous weapons to
people operating in their civilian capacity.
Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues
to oppose it, as well.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, I point to the amendment where it refers to
section 921(a)(24) of the title, which is going to keep weapons that
are currently not allowed in civilian hands out of civilian hands.
Our law enforcement officials are highly trained. Whether they are
using an AR-15 or whether they are using a similar high-powered rifle
with a high-intensity scope, they are trained to do such.
I have lots of friends and family who use these weapons on a daily
basis for sport shooting and other purposes.
If our law enforcement officers, if they have served their time and
are retiring from that duty of protecting the civilians across this
Nation, want to purchase a weapon that they have been utilizing for who
knows how much time, they should be able to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the provision that the gentleman refers to
refers only to machine guns. It does not exclude other firearms, as I
mentioned, such as short-barreled rifles and even grenade launchers,
and these are too dangerous.
We should not be selling these dangerous weapons to people operating
in their civilian capacity. That is why this amendment is dangerous and
radically changes the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, again, I refuse to accept the premise that
a grenade launcher is going to be purchased and allowed to be purchased
by a former law enforcement official. That is just not realistic. It is
not true, and it is very misleading to this body.
When we have people who have risked their lives to defend folks
across this country in our communities, then they should be able to
purchase these retired weapons.
We have heard them called retired weapons. Because the value has been
dramatically reduced, they are going to be put into a stockpile. They
are going to be salvaged. They are going to be destroyed.
Allow us to generate some revenue, and allow the people who have used
them the longest and the safest to continue their use.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, section 5845, definitions, reads as
follows: ``(a) Firearm, the term `firearm' means (1) a shotgun having a
barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made
from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less
than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in
length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has
an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less
than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in
subsection (e); (6) a machine gun''--which is the only thing the
gentleman excludes from his amendment--``(7) any silencer (as defined .
. . ); and (8) a destructive device,'' like a grenade launcher, like a
grenade.
Therefore, when I say that this amendment would ban only machine guns
but would permit all these other things, including grenades and weapons
of destruction, it is right here in the statute. The gentleman's
amendment would permit all of these. Those are the kinds of weapons.
Grenade launchers and short-barreled rifles should not be in the
possession of civilians, even retired police officers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, again, I refuse to accept the premise that
you are going to have grenade launchers that are going to be purchased
by Federal law enforcement. They are not utilizing those, and they are
not going to be purchased by them.
We are talking about the handguns and the rifles that are currently
allowed to be possessed by civilians. Those are the only ones that are
going to be able to be purchased.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Moylan). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana will
be postponed.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Mike Garcia of California) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moylan, Acting
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 3091) to allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase
retired service weapons, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________