mr. speaker , while i sympathize with the original objective of s. 397 , the protection of lawful commerce in arms act , i am forced to oppose this legislation primarily because of unconstitutional gun control amendments added to the bill in the senate . 
as a firm believer in the second amendment to the united states constitution and an opponent of all federal gun laws , i can not support a bill that imposes new , unconstitutional gun controls on americans . 
i believe that the second amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties . 
in fact , i have introduced legislation , the second amendment protection act ( h.r. 1703 ) , which repeals misguided federal gun control laws such as the brady bill . 
senate amendments added two sections to s. 397 that impose unconstitutional controls on american gun owners and sellers . 
first , a section was added to the bill to outlaw any licensed gun importer , manufacturer , or dealer from selling , delivering , or transferring a handgun without a `` secure gun storage or safety device. '' each and any violation of this requirement can result in a person being fined up to $ 2 , 500 or having his license revoked . 
this gun lock requirement amounts to the imposition of a new federal tax on each handgun sale because gun buyers will be forced to pay the cost of the `` secure gun storage or safety device '' that is required with a handgun , irrespective of if that device is desired . 
further , the severe penalties for noncompliance -- whether intentional or accidental -- add yet more weight to the crippling regulations that hang over gun transactions in the united states . 
second , a section was added to the bill to create draconian penalties for people who possess `` armor piercing '' bullets . 
just like the democratic congress before it that passed the `` assault weapons '' ban , the republican congress is poised to give in to anti-gun rights scare tactics by selectively banning bullets . 
instead of each gun owner being able to decide what ammunition he uses in his gun , federal bureaucrats will make that decision . 
to recognize the threat such regulation places on gun owners , just consider that a gun without ammunition is nothing more than an expensive club . 
regulating ammunition is the back door path to gun regulation . 
the `` armor piercing '' bullets restriction imposes a 15 years mandatory minimum sentence for just carrying or possessing such bullets -- even without a gun -- during or in `` relation to '' a crime of violence or drug trafficking . 
given the wide scope of criminal laws and the fact that people are on occasion accused of crimes they did not commit , this provision promises to discourage many non-violent , law-abiding individuals from possessing ammunition protected under the second amendment . 
further , it does not take much imagination to see how such a provision could be used by an anti-gun prosecutor in the prosecution of an individual who used a gun in self defense , especially considering that use of such bullets to murder can result in a death sentence . 
in such instances , a defendant who exercised self defense may well accept a guilty plea bargain to avoid the severe enhanced penalties imposed under s. 397 . 
i am particularly disturbed that the house of representatives ' leadership has taken the unusual step of bringing s. 397 to the floor for a vote without house members at least having an opportunity to vote on removing the gun control amendments . 
instead of voting on a bill that contains the new gun control provisions , we should be considering h.r. 800 , the house version of s. 397 prior to its perversion by gun control amendments . 
notably , gun owners of america has written to house members to request that they oppose s. 397 and , instead , support h.r. 800 . 
last month , i wrote to house speaker dennis hastert , majority leader tom delay , and committee on the judiciary chairman james sensenbrenner of my opposition to these anti-gun rights provisions in s. 397 . 
while i am concerned about some of the federalism implications of h.r. 800 , it is a far superior bill because it neither requires gun locks nor restricts gun owners ' ammunition choices . 
with 258 sponsors and cosponsors , h.r. 800 would easily pass the house . 
the house voting for h.r. 800 would allow the differences between h.r. 800 and s. 397 to be reconciled in conference committee . 
in conference , every expectation would be that the new gun control provisions would be stripped from the legislation given that the original , unamended s. 397 had 62 senate sponsors and cosponsors -- a filibuster proof majority -- in the senate . 
i regret that , under the guise of helping gun owners , the house of representatives is today considering imposing new unconstitutional gun controls . 
i , thus , must oppose s. 397 . 
