Statement of Representative Pete Stark: In Opposition to Increased Gun Violence in the District of Columbia

MR. STARK: Madam Speaker, I rise today in adamant opposition to the National Capital Security & Safety Act as amended. I commend my colleagues Delegate Holmes-Norton and Representative Waxman on the work they have done to ensure that the D.C. City Council remains the leader in enacting the laws necessary to comply with the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Unfortunately, Mr. Childers' amendment ruins the intent of this legislation and has dire consequences for the nation's capital.

I don't agree with the Supreme Court's decision. Regardless, I do believe that the D.C. City Council is in the best position to decide what regulations are appropriate for their community. Congress has trampled on the District's autonomy for long enough. The last thing D.C. needs is Congressional Members to repeatedly and unnecessarily intervene in issues specific to the District of Columbia.

Equally problematic and more disturbing are the repercussions of Mr. Childers' amendment. His amendment throws out the D.C. City Council's emergency handgun regulations and replaces them with so-called regulations that in fact endanger their communities' public safety. His amendment allows for the stockpiling of semiautomatic assault weapons, fully loaded firearms in homes, and discourages the passage of common-sense legislation addressing safe storage requirements or age limits for the possession of assault rifles.

The supporters of this amendment are not representing the people of D.C., they are representing the gun lobby. The nationwide statistics on deaths caused by intentional and accidental gunfire are extreme to begin with, but Washington D.C. is rated as the thirteenth most dangerous city in the country, where the homicide rate is almost double the national average. Are the supporters of this amendment representing the families in the District who have lost their loved ones to gun violence? Or the policemen and women who experience up close the misuse of guns by both kids and adults every day? No. Supporters of this amendment are only supporting the National Rifle Association.

We're not living in the 1700s, when governmental police forces were nonexistent and state militias were a constant threat to central government. Supporters of Mr. Childers' amendment need to pull their heads out of the past and face the present: gun violence is an ugly reality, and we're not doing the people of the District of Columbia any favors by considering legislation that will endanger lives under the disguise of protecting constitutional rights. The people who make up this country are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and they certainly can't claim their right to the last two if they lose their lives. That's what guns do- they kill people.

I strongly urge my colleagues to stand with me in opposing this bill.

Source