security, it is a fundamental ability to protect oneself and one's family and once property and so, in fact, is a fundamental right and if we have a reasonable laos and reasonable for mending my shouldn't suva two now have that freedom, have that right and have the security when she visits other states which also allow concealed carry. this isn't just anecdotal quote. this is also back up by chronological studies -- criminal logical studies. settingç trends on concluding that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons to tears when crimes. one state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county murders fell by 8.5%. and rapes and aggravated

assaults fell by five and 7%. in the 1990's they found that guns were used for self protection about 2.5 a million times yearly. and that number of cars doris these tiny numbers and amoco evidence of a limited very tiny numbers of improper use of guns by folks with concealed carry permits. responding to the study is robert self-described as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country than he could not dispute the methodology and the soundness of the senate. it it was clear he could not disputed and he agreed with it and sell our amendment will simply allow law-abiding americans to exercise their of and so right to self-defense by

using the full faith and credit clause in our u.s. constitution. and as we do this, as we protect that fundamental individual right, we also protect states' rights and think it's very important to address some of the arguments with regards to states' rights may buy the other side. we do not mandate the right to conceal kerry in any say that do not allow the practice and there are some states illinois and wisconsin that fallen to that category. we do not mandates concealed carry rise in those states and. in addition our amendment does not establish national standards for concealed carry. it does not provide a national carrier permits. it simply allows citizens were able to carry in their home states to also carry and other

states but only if those other states have a concealed carry permits. then we also respect the law of those other states in terms of where guns can be carried in the red they cannot be carried so we explicitly respect of that state law by requiring that state laws concerning specific types of location in which farmers cannot be carried must be followed by then visiting individual and that is very important. so finally we absolutely protect and enshrined current federal law in terms of background checks and people with criminal problems or mental problems who cannot carry guns so if under current law individual is right for a federal law from carrying a firearm we absolutely protect and enshrine that. let me say that again -- and under current federal law and

individual is prohibited from carrying a gun that is fully protected. mr. president at the end of the day this is really again in a fundamental debate about what is the problem in terms of violent crime. is the problem really law abiding citizens who follow the law, would take all of the time and all of the trouble and needed to get concealed carry permits come and go to background checks, the law forms, and do everything that is required by their home state -- is that class of people of the fundamental cause of violent crime? and is the dominant 99.9% fundamental problem in the violent crime irina people who don't follow the law who ignore the law and ignoring concealed carry law and ignore those requirements as well as every other law on the books

unfortunately including laws against murder and armed robbery and other violent crime. clearly in the minds of common sense americans here is a latter category where the problem, not the former and this is a six and that evidence in the history bears that out. so it concealed carry is a useful and essential two will for law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves and stop and deter violent crime. is not a significant source of violent crime whatsoever. we have a the numbers that appear that out, we have some states that allow reciprocity now. it can states allow reciprocity enter their state law? have they seen incidence of problems with concealed carry permits from other states? know, have they seen spikes in a

violent crime because of this reciprocity? no. so afghan mr. president because this is a fundamental right, because it goes to the peoples security, because it chronological and other studies are on parricide indo show any spike in violent crime by this but, in fact, show krems prevented and deterred by concealed carry, i urge all of my colleagues to support this important reciprocity eminent. one groups of the country who respect to the second amendment and find that a fundamental and a partner right are certainly supporting this amendment. the national rifle association, the nra is a strong supporter of this eminent. i think them for that, i think them for their leadership and also specifically scoring this amendment in terms of member

votes. gun owners of america, another leading gun rights second amendment group is a strong supporter of this amendment as specifically is pushing for passage and scoring members' votes. and the owner operator independent drivers association, the passenger cargo security group in any other groups around the country won strong supporters of this amendment because the second amendment is a fundamental right because concealed carry does work, because of iran's crimes and the tears crimes and is now seven and mcginley and in any meaningful way to the crime problem. and dennis b. what like with a lot of gun control and debates, this comes down to a pretty fundamental question. to think the big problem with regard to a violent crime is the law-abiding citizens, the ones who take the time, go to the trouble filling out forms

involving all the rules for concealed carry? i don't. one or do think the fundamental problem with 99.9% problem is the criminal who doesn't respect that law, surely doesn't respect that law because he doesn't even respect laws against murder and armed robbery and other violent crimes. that's the problem, mr. president. common-sense americans know that in this amendment will protect law-abiding citizens and provide another effective and important tool against those criminals who are the problem. thank you mr. president and i yield back my time. >> the senator from illinois has 47 minutes and 34 seconds. >> mr. president, i yield 10 minutes to senator schumer from new york. >> senator is recognized to make thank you mr. president and i

would like to thank all of my colleagues who are working with us on this amendment, the senator from california who has been such a leader on these issues and will speak after me and she and i were commenting that this is probably the most dangerous piece of legislation to is the safety of americans when it comes to guns since the repeal of the assault weapon ban which she led the charge on to pass. i like to thank my colleague from new jersey senator lautenberg has been a leader on gun issues and then such a great job, mr. menendez, senator gillibrand, senator durbin was so many others working with us today on this issue. now today we are here to say in that we urge all of our colleagues thought to oppose this legislation. , the legislation would do nothing less then take state and

local gun laws and tear them up. it would take the carefully crafted gun laws in york and tear them up. it would do the same in 47 other states. and the great irony of this amendment is two that that program lobby has always said that let the states decide and now they're doing 180-degree turn and saying to the federal government decide. and impose the lowest common denominator mine comes to carry out concealed weapons on all of the states except illinois and wisconsin which don't have any carry laws. in reno the gun lobby is strong camino that are many members on both side who believed strongly in individuals' rights to carry arms. but this legislation goes way beyond the previous pro gun laws that we have voted on the

session. it is a bridge too far, it threatens the safety of millions of americans particularly in urban and suburban areas. it directly threatens the safety of millions of new yorkers. and let me illustrate -- our neighboring state of vermont, i have great respect for it, and it is two senators. it is a rural state with ended has a strong libertarian beliefs. and it has a very lenient concealed carry law. the vermont law says that if you are 16 years of age you can apply for a gun licence and you automatically get a concealed carry permits and you get the gun. you simply have to, that is all you have to do.

can you imagine if this past, what would happen? no gunrunners would go to vermont women get a gun license, get a concealed carry permits and they could bring 20, 30, 50 guns concealed in a backpack, in a suitcase and bring them and sell them on the streets of the south bronx or central brooklyn, bring them to central park were queens and our local police would have their hands tied. so one of the points only to make my colleagues about this amendment is in danger is not only the citizenry but our police officers. today at about this time the mayor of the city of new york and a police commissioner will be speaking out against this

proposal and our police commissioner is particularly upset because his job is the safety of police officers. a police officer of stop someone in a car and now have the safety and sanctity of mines to no wobble that if that person has a gun in their car it has been approved by the new york city police department. there are people that needed guns for self-defense or other purposes. after this law passes the have no such peace of mind, no such statement. in fact, they have no way. imagine you are a police officer and saw someone they could be from 47 different states with 47 different requirements were and you are responsible to figure out if the person has a gun in his car and the right to carry a gun in his car. it is impossible to do.

in our large urban areas. and in that reason mr. president each state would have carefully crafted its white was in the way that makes the most sense to protect its citizens. clearly larger urban areas like new york merit a different standard than rural areas like wyoming. to get the ability of local police and sheriff's to determine who should be able to carry a concealed weapon but makes no sense, it could reverse the dramatic success we have had in reducing crime in most parts of america. and that is one thing and want to stress. one of the things i'm proudest of modern parent has done over the last 20 years the federal, state and local with is greatly reduce crime. my city of new york gained

because people were no longer afraid to come to live in new york. and if you ask the experts, not me, not senator thune or any of us who have political beliefs that might differ but asked the police experts, what is one of an top reasons why that we have been able to reduce crime in our cities? is that we have had reasonable laws on guns. and we have allowed our larger urban war crime-ridden areas to have stricter laws that our rural areas. i understand it in my state of new york sentence on a way of law and a large breasts the state and i respect that. the heller decision is a decision that i welcome and talked about the right to bear arms in the constitution. and believe in it even before heller. wall but this is what i like to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle and in the nra. no amendment is absolute.

you are right when you say why should the first third, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments be expanded as far as we can the second amendment scenes with a pinhole? malicious. you're right. but similarly no amendment is absolute to. most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support laws preventing the spread of pornography, but that is an infringement of the horsemen and put a reasonable one because there is a balancing test most of my friends on both sides of the aisle was support libel laws and somebody said someone very defamatory but a citizen they should have the right to sue and, of course,. that is a limitation on the first amendment. and you don't really against it. well, the concealed carry loads of the state's are reasonable limits on the second amendment. and to believe this settlement should have no limits the course

will for this amendment. the data out ask you the counter question and that some who are pro-gun ask those of us who believe in more than control. how is it that the second amendment should have no limits but the first, third, six, seven and eight should? of course, reasonable limits in a balance does exist and if there is a balancing test that makes sense it is the one of allowing each state to come up with is concealed carry long. me some my colleagues, this is an amendment i don't think anyone can be proud of. i understand the power of the gun lobby. i understand it that we have given police and represent different states, but we are not trying to say what south dakota should do, why should south dakota say when new york or

california to do? what is spoken and have great respect for the sponsor of this amendment and we were speaking in the gym yesterday and he said one of the problems he hears about and the senate was truckdrivers in the cab of his truck carries a gun and his son to carry a gun. and why should that truck driver when he crosses state lines from south dakota and north dakota or minnesota be limited? and i can understand that argument that this amendment goes way beyond that. it doesn't talk about one weapon, it doesn't talk about a person who has been granted license because he needs a for protection as the commerce is across state lines. is unlimited and based on one ever will lowest common denominator state would do. wamp this lot is going to make the gun traffickers and snow numbers -- to the senator's time

has expired canada and think the president and ask unanimous consent the rest be added to the record. >> without objection. >> mr. president, which is a couple of quick observations. first, and to correct the record the state of south dakota has reciprocity and doesn't have national reciprocity which i think is then the point i'm making and that is anybody who has a concealed carry permits in one state is so confused by the patchwork of laws we have that they can determine which is legal and not in a think that is a very serious problem repeople light truck drivers or individuals who want to protect themselves and they travel across the country in an ad that in terms of the arguments made about the types of individuals that have access the '90s is a gun-control act prohibits individuals from even possessing a firearm it is under indictment or been convicted of a crime

punishable unlawful user and it adjudicated two mentally ill or committed involuntarily to mental institution subject to court or the standing of domestic violence or has been convicted of domestic violence the misdemeanor. my amendment does nothing to change federal law. but in the middle not allowed to possess a firearm may certainly not be allowed to concealing carry one and the might add with regard to the issue about taking multiple guns and transporting and our federal laws that prevent trafficking in firms already and do nothing to address that but we allow those individuals law-abiding citizens to have permits in their home states into is to defend themselves and they traveled around the country and have the opportunity to do that by the senate earlier this is a big stake in hand permits for over 20 years and has agreements with the multiple states and no

evidence whatsoever in the city florida that there has been any suggestion of increased crime rather suggest the opposite and i was saying from newark that if someone who has concealed carry permits troubles of the city of new york any concealed carry permits in south dakota and goes to new york in central park it will be in much safer place. i would yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from south carolina. >> with my colleague deal for a question? to mcneill the time to the center. >> i would have been two later on the center of the works time. >> i would ask consent of the given 30 seconds to ask a question to make is there objection? >> i would object to that the mr. president campus senator from south carolina has been healed the time to commend the

senator from south carolina can and thank you. i have a choice of this debate went down the son of liberal versus conservative until one i got to understand during the confirmation hearing a lot of the judge that senator feingold is one of the strongest gun and guys in the senate side had to recalculate -- we calibrate were as san on this issue in terms of time to pigeonhole people. of the point of the amendment and shouldn't be on the defense bill. i think we all agree with that and we're talking about the defense authorization bill to protect our troops and provide equipment and give a pay raise and now you're talking about guns in hate crimes but i don't know how we got here is a body but we're here and you have to pick an amendment to talk about that makes sense to most eminence would like to be talked about would be something fundamental to our country and i

think most americans are a little bit right to be an issue like this for a lack of a better phraseology, most believe in lawful and responsible gun ownership and quite frankly and that is what this is trying to bolster. and make an observation that if you take this time to take a concealed carry permits that allows it you let the law enforcement authorities know you're interested in owning and then you go to a training seminar and the states have to be able to get the permits will have to go through whenever food since have to be able to carry a weapon in a concealed fashion, that you're probably not of high on the list who want to commit a crime because you'd be incredibly stupid. you are pointing out to the whole state i've got a gun would and i would argue that the people who go to the exercise of

getting a concealed to carry a permanent of the ones who probably want to have a gun because they seem to understand their responsibilities that goes with owning it so the idea that this make us less safe by allowing reciprocity nationwide makes no sense to me. i think of all the people we need to worry about the crown crimes and awfully people with permits are probably class on the list. americans do object to of guns being used in the commission of crimes and a lot of states have enhanced punishment that if you use a firearm in commission of a crime when you're incarceration time can go up. in other words, we want to