Page:Congressional Record - 2016-01-05.pdf/9

 SSpencer on DSK9F6TC42PROD with HOUSE

January 5, 2016

If you are a criminal, I am sure it is true that that could be done. But for law-abiding individuals, the kind that don’t go out and commit crimes, they followed the law. The law requires for gun dealers, whether it is a transaction over the Internet or not, there has to be a background check. But somebody keeps feeding the President false information that he passes on to the United States citizenry. We have got to get the President some help so he can get the facts straight that he conveys to the American public. I haven’t bought a gun online, but talking to people that have, if you go online to buy a gun, there is going to be a background check. You cannot just have the gun mailed to you. You have to go to a gun store. They don’t really appreciate having you buy a weapon online and then come to the store where they have brick and mortar invested in the local economy. They are the ones that have to make sure the law is complied with. But you can’t just go online and buy a gun unless you are an outlaw already violating the law, in which case more laws won’t make a difference. Only enforcement of existing laws would stop that kind of conduct. There is an article from Paul Bedard, January 5: ‘‘Obama’s New Gun Control Force 8X the Size of Pentagon’s ISIS Commando Team.’’ It points out: ‘‘According to a White House fact sheet, the President plans to deploy 200 more Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents ‘to help enforce our gun laws.’ ‘‘He also plans to add at least 230 new FBI agents to pore over the backgrounds of gun buyers. . . In Iraq, by comparison, the White House is moving to install an estimated 50–200 Special Operations Forces to take down ISIS.’’ Here again, it is not enough to simply add FBI or ATF agents when this administration refuses to prosecute gun violations, gun law violations, even as aggressively as the Bush administration did. Of course, this administration seems to think the Bush administration was too lax on gun policy, but yet they won’t even prosecute but a fraction of the cases that the Bush administration did. It is also worth noting that, when this article compares to the actions in Iraq, having been to the command center there in northern Iraq myself, having talked to people on the ground there, having talked to people who have done surveys, done studies of what is going on there with ISIS, you find out this administration, yeah, they are sending planes up, but a majority of the ordnances aren’t dropped. Apparently, according to one source, even though they see trucks carrying weapons to ISIS, they are not allowed to take the trucks out. If they see supplies going to ISIS, they are not allowed to stop them. They are not allowed to crater the road they are using. This administration has rules of

VerDate Sep 11 2014

02:51 Jan 06, 2016

H11

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE

Jkt 059060

engagement in place that don’t allow the United States to actually defend ourselves against ISIS. Is it any wonder that it was reported that the radical Islamist terrorists in the Middle East have no fear of this administration or of America because they see how ridiculous the restrictions are that we put on ourselves, our fighting people? They fear, more, Israel because Israel will take legitimate actions to win. b 2015 There is an article from AWR Hawkins, 5 January 2016, which reads, ‘‘A January 4 White House executive order fact sheet previews the executive gun controls Obama will announce Tuesday. ‘‘The five most offensive aspects of those controls: ‘‘One, the main policy would not have stopped any recent mass shootings,’’ which would indicate—since that appears to be the fact, that nothing he has proposed would change the mass shootings—then, obviously, they are more concerned about either, A, putting on a show or, B, curtailing lawabiding citizens more than actually stopping the mass shootings. ‘‘Two, 225 years of precedent destroyed without any legislative due process.’’ Some say, ‘‘Yes. But we already have background checks. So the President is not changing that.’’ The law is very clear as to what a gun dealer is. He is somebody who is in the business of selling guns. This administration is now saying, ‘‘Hey, if you sell one gun, that can mean being in the business,’’ and that has never been the law. This President is unilaterally attempting to change the law so that, if an uncle wants to sell to his nephew, then this President would try to be a wedge there. We are not going to prosecute nearly the gun violations like the Bush administration did, but, yes, we will come after that uncle and get between the uncle and the nephew. We are going to be as big an impediment to law-abiding citizens as possible in the way this administration is approaching this; whereas, we are turning a blind eye to so much of the criminal activity, which is the way it appears. This article from TheBlaze, ‘‘Obama’s Executive Action on Guns Changes Privacy Rules Between Doctor and Patient,’’ talks about how it will push doctors to report patients they believe may have a problem with the proper use of guns. It is putting a wedge between doctors and patients. Another article here is from Stephen Gutowski: ‘‘Obama Executive Order May Require Those Selling Even a Single Firearm to Become Licensed Dealers.’’ That is not the law. This President is changing the law without there being the congressional passage of a law that he would sign. Another article is from John Lott, dated January 5. Dr. Lott knows the

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4636

Sfmt 0634

gun laws and knows the gun facts. This is from the National Review. Dr. Lott points out, if you really want to fix things, don’t charge gun buyers for the background checks. Fix the system so it stops falsely flagging the law-abiding people. This article also points out that 99 percent of the flags turn out to be improper flags. Three, stop using background checks as de facto registration, which appears to be what they are actually trying to do. The article from Kelly Riddell, dated July 23, 2014, points out ‘‘Obama’s Empty Tough Talk: Gun Prosecutions Plummet on His Watch,’’ with the numbers and figures to back that up. By failing to prosecute gun violations while pressing for more gun laws, it makes one wonder if that is kind of akin to our servicemembers who are in harm’s way. For example, in Afghanistan, in the 71⁄4 years under Commander in Chief George W. Bush, I believe the number of precious American military lives lost was just over 500. Under Commander in Chief Obama, I believe it is at least three times that many or more than that. What is different? The war is supposed to have basically gone away. We ended it, according to the President. Yet, under his command, people got killed in multiples when the war was supposedly over. Our military members tell me it is the rules of engagement. We can’t defend ourselves. We have a motorcyclist terrorist—a radical Jihadist—come blazing up toward a checkpoint, killing people. You realize, wow, we have a lieutenant that this administration, under Commander Obama, sent to Fort Leavenworth—to prison—for, apparently, giving the order to shoot an Afghan on a motorcycle because he was not slowing down as ordered, he was not yielding to the gunfire over his head. A good way to get Americans killed is to put them in prison if they try to defend themselves or those under their command. So it just leaves you with the question: Who is this administration really trying to protect? Are we trying to protect our own military members who are in harm’s way? It doesn’t appear so. Not enforcing the laws against criminals for their gun violations and, instead, demanding more and more control over law-abiding citizens in their use of weapons. Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of seniors who may not be able to tell you how much money is in their bank accounts; so, they have someone helping them with their bank accounts. But they can sure tell you when somebody is breaking into their homes and when they need a weapon. We were taught in my 4 years in the Army that a gun is a great equalizer. So if you are 85 years old and somebody is breaking into your home—someone who is strong and powerful and can break your body over his knee—a gun is a great equalizer. But under this

E:CRFMK05JA7.017

H05JAPT1