mr. speaker , once again we find ourselves here debating the scope of the second amendment and whether its purpose is to protect the sanctity of state militias or provide a fundamental right to individuals , irrespective of their relationship to state militias , to possess firearms . 
while this bill cites in its findings that the second amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms , there has been a definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the second amendment protects . 
in united states v. miller , the supreme court wrote in 1939 that the `` obvious purpose '' of the right to keep and bear arms in the second amendment was `` to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness '' of state militias and that the guarantee of that right `` must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. '' this language was a clear indication that the second amendment right to `` bear arms '' guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias , but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons . 
mr. speaker , for more than sixty years following the supreme court 's decision in miller , there was little judicial debate regarding the scope of the second amendment . 
in fact , virtually every federal appeals court has decided this issue and only one , the fifth circuit in united states v. emerson , has endorsed the individual rights view . 
since the emerson opinion in 2001 -- which was joined by only two circuit court judges and actually upheld the gun law at issue -- the individual rights view has been rejected by the fourth , sixth , seventh , ninth and tenth circuits . 
the first , second , third and eighth circuits also have issued definitive rulings rejecting the individual rights view . 
the first circuit held that the second amendment applies only to firearms having a `` reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. '' 1939 miller case . 
in 1984 , in the second circuit , the court cited miller for the proposition that the right to possess a gun was `` not a fundamental right '' because the second amendment did not guarantee the right to keep and bear a weapon unless the evidence showed the firearm had some `` reasonable relationship '' to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia -- u.s. v. toner . 
in 1996 , in the third circuit , defendant 's possession of machine guns did not have a connection with militia-related activity required for second amendment protections to apply -- u.s. v. rybar . 
the fourth circuit , a 1995 case , stated that courts have consistently held that the second amendment only confers a collective right of keeping and bearing arms which bear a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia -- love v. pepersack . 
the sixth circuit , in 2000 , held that the lower courts have uniformly held that the second amendment preserves a collective rather than an individual right -- u.s. v. napier . 
the seventh circuit , the second amendment establishes no right to possess a firearm apart from the role possession of the gun might play in maintaining a state militia . 
that is a 1999 case -- gillespie v. city of indianapolis . 
the eighth circuit stated that the purpose of the second amendment is to restrain the federal government from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia . 
that is a 1992 case -- u.s. v. hale . 
the ninth circuit in 2003 stated that it is this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the second amendment -- silveira v. lockyer . 
the tenth circuit , a 1977 case , to apply the amendment so as to guarantee an appellant 's right to keep an unregistered firearm which has not been shown to have any connection with the militia , merely because he is technically a member of the kansas militia , would be unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy -- u.s. v. oakes . 
the eleventh circuit , a 1997 case concerning motivating the creation of the second amendment , convinces us that the amendment was intended to protect only the use or protection of weapons reasonably related to a militia actively maintained and trained by the states -- u.s. v. wright . 
i believe these cases are evidence of the remarkable degree of judicial consensus on the meaning of the second amendment . 
mr. speaker , i suggest that if my colleagues across the aisle want to amend the constitution , they should do it by amendment rather than attempting to do it through findings . 
mr , speaker , this bill also contains a provision requiring a conviction before a defendant who has violated 18 u.s.c . 
924 ( h ) can be sued . 
requiring a conviction before an offender can be sued for the civil consequences of his unlawful acts would constitute an extraordinary change in traditional civil liability standards . 
the public will remember that o.j. simpson was found civilly liable for damages , even though he had been acquitted in criminal court . 
moreover , such a requirement would create absurd results , based on what a prosecutor may decide to do in a particular case , and when he decides to do it . 
the prosecutor may choose not to prosecute a particular case at all , for various reasons . 
this would preclude a claim , regardless of how egregious the injuries or clear the liability . 
or , even where the case is prosecuted , the prosecutor may decide to plea bargain by allowing a defendant who has unlawfully transferred a number guns to plead guilty to one transfer and drop the remainder . 
it would be absurd to allow one case to go forward and not others , depending on which case was technically pleaded . 
of course , it is always possible that a case will be thrown out because of an unlawful search or seizure because of a coerced confession , or simply because the prosecutor is unable to obtain a conviction . 
and even where there is a conviction , the timing of the conviction , alone , may be dispositive of the claim , because there is nothing in the bill or the law which tolls the statute of limitations on a civil claim , pending a conviction . 
and there is nothing in the bill to deal with what happens if the conviction is reversed or appeal . 
absent a conviction , the unlawful transfer still must be proven in order to pursue the case . 
this should be protection enough for someone who causes another harm by criminal conduct . 
mr. speaker , this bill is an unprecedented attack on the due process rights of victims injured by the misconduct of an industry that seeks to escape the legal rules that govern the rest of us and i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill . 
i submit the following list of cases supporting collective view for the record . 
a sampling of court decisions that support the militia interpretation of the second amendment from the legal action project . 
u.s. v. miller , 307 u.s. 174 ( 1939 ) . 
lewis v. united states , 445 u.s. 55 ( 1980 ) . 
u.s. v. parker , 362 f.3d 1279 ( 10th cir . 
2004 ) . 
u.s. v. lippman , 369 f.3d 1039 ( 8th cir . 
2004 ) . 
u.s. v. price , 328 f.3d 958 ( 7th cir . 
2003 ) . 
u.s. v. graham , 305 f.3d 1094 ( 10th cir . 
2002 ) . 
u.s. v. lucero , 43 fed . 
appx . 
299 ( 10th cir . 
2002 ) . 
u.s. v. bayles , 310 f.3d 1302 ( 10th cir . 
2002 ) . 
silveira v. lockyer , 312 f.3d 1052 , rehearing en banc denied , 328 f.3d 567 ( 9th cir . 
2003 ) . 
& lt ; /em & gt ; & lt ; em & gt ; olympic arms v. buckles , 301 f.3d 384 ( 6th cir . 
2002 ) . 
u.s. v. twenty-two various firearms , 38 fed . 
appx . 
229 ( 6th cir . 
2002 ) . 
u.s. v. hancock , 231 f.3d 557 ( 9th cir . 
2000 ) , cert . 
denied , 121 s. ct . 
1641 ( 2001 ) . 
u.s. v. finitz , 234 f.3d 1278 ( 9th cir . 
2000 ) , cert . 
denied , 121 s. ct . 
833 ( 2001 ) . 
u.s. v. lewis , 236 f.3d 948 ( 8th cir . 
2001 ) . 
u.s. v. hemmings , 258 f. 3d 587 ( 7th cir . 
2001 ) . 
u.s. v. hager , 22 fed . 
appx . 
130 ( 4th cir . 
2001 ) . 
gillespie v. city of indianapolis , 185 f.3d 693 ( 7th cir . 
1999 ) , cert . 
denied , 528 u.s. 1116 ( 2000 ) . 
u.s. v. napier , 233 f.3d 394 ( 6th cir . 
2000 ) . 
u.s. v. baer , 235 f.3d 561 ( 10th cir . 
2000 ) . 
u.s. v. wright , 117 f.3d 1265 ( 11th cir. ) , cert . 
denied , 522 u.s. 1007 ( 1997 ) . 
u.s. v. rybar , 103 f.3d 273 ( 3rd cir . 
1996 ) , cert . 
denied , 522 u.s. 807 ( 1997 ) . 
hickman v. block , 81 f.3d 98 ( 9th cir. ) , cert . 
denied , 519 u.s. 912 ( 1996 ) . 
u.s. v. farrell , 69 f.3d 891 ( 8th cir . 
1995 ) . 
love v. pepersack , 47 f.3d 120 ( 4th cir. ) , cert . 
denied , 516 u.s. 813 ( 1995 ) . 
u.s. v. friel , 1 f.3d 1231 ( 1st cir.1993 ) . 
u.s. v. hale , 978 f.2d 1016 ( 8th cir . 
1992 ) , cert . 
denied , 507 u.s. 997 ( 1993 ) . 
u.s. v. nelsen , 859 f.2d 1318 ( 8th cir . 
1988 ) . 
u.s. v. toner , 728 f.2d 115 ( 2d cir . 
1984 ) . 
thomas v. city council of portland , 730 f.2d 41 ( 1st cir . 
1984 ) . 
quilici v. village of morton grove , 695 f.2d 261 ( 7th cir . 
1982 ) , cert . 
denied , 464 u.s. 863 ( 1983 ) . 
u.s. v. oakes , 564 f.2d 384 ( 10th cir . 
1977 ) , cert . 
denied , 435 u.s. 926 ( 1978 ) . 
u.s. v. graves , 554 f.2d 65 ( 3rd cir . 
1977 ) . 
u.s. v. swinton , 521 f.2d 1255 ( 10th cir . 
1975 ) , cert . 
denied , 424 u.s. 918 ( 1976 ) . 
u.s. v. warin , 530 f.2d 103 ( 6th cir. ) , cert . 
denied , 426 u.s. 948 ( 1976 ) . 
u.s. v. johnson , 497 f.2d 548 ( 4th cir . 
1974 ) . 
eckert v. city of philadelphia , 477 f.2d 610 ( 3rd cir. ) , cert . 
denied , 414 u.s. 839 ( 1973 ) . 
u.s. v. day , 476 f.2d 562 ( 6th cir . 
1973 ) . 
cody v. u.s. , 460 f.2d 34 ( 8th cir. ) , cert . 
denied , 409 u.s. 1010 ( 1972 ) . 
u.s. v. decker , 446 f.2d 164 ( 8th cir . 
1971 ) . 
u.s. v. synnes , 438 f.2d 764 ( 8th cir . 
1971 ) , vacated on other grounds , 404 u.s. 1009 ( 1972 ) . 
u.s. v. mccutcheon , 446 f.2d 133 ( 7th cir . 
1971 ) . 
stevens v. u.s. , 440 f.2d 144 ( 6th cir . 
1971 ) . 
u.s. v. tot , 131 f.2d 261 ( 3rd cir . 
1942 ) , rev 'd on other grounds , 319 u.s. 463 ( 1943 ) . 
u.s. v. cases , 131 f.2d 916 ( 1st cir . 
1942 ) , cert . 
denied sub nom. , velazquez v. u.s. , 319 u.s. 770 ( 1943 ) . 
parker v. district of columbia , 311 f. supp . 
2d 103 ( d.d.c . 
2004 ) . 
blackburn v. jansen , 241 f. supp . 
2d 1047 ( d . 
neb . 
2003 ) . 
golt v. city of signal hill , 132 f. supp . 
2d 1271 ( c.d . 
cal . 
2001 ) . 
olympic arms v. magaw , 91 f. supp . 
2d 1061 ( e.d . 
mich . 
2000 ) . 
u.s. v. willbern , 2000 wl 554134 ( d . 
kan . 
apr . 
12 , 2000 ) . 
u.s. v. bournes , 105 f. supp . 
2d 736 ( e.d . 
mich . 
2000 ) . 
u.s. v. boyd , 52 f. supp . 
2d 1233 ( d . 
kan . 
1999 ) , aff 'd , 211 f.3d 1279 ( 10th cir . 
2000 ) . 
u.s. v. henson , 55 f. supp . 
2d 528 ( s.d . 
w. va . 
1999 ) . 
u.s. v. visnich , 65 f. supp . 
2d 669 ( n.d . 
ohio 1999 ) . 
u.s. v. caron , 941 f. supp . 
238 ( d . 
mass . 
1996 ) . 
moscowitz v. brown , 850 f. supp . 
1185 ( s.d.n.y . 
1994 ) . 
u.s. v. kruckel , 1993 wl 765648 ( d.n.j. aug . 
13 , 1993 ) . 
krisko v. oswald , 655 f. supp . 
147 ( e.d . 
pa . 
1987 ) . 
u.s. v. kozerski , 518 f. supp . 
1082 ( d.n.h. 1981 ) , cert . 
denied , 496 u.s. 842 ( 1984 ) . 
vietnamese fishermen 's association v. kkk , 543 f. supp . 
198 ( s.d . 
tex . 
1982 ) . 
thompson v. dereta , 549 f. supp . 
297 ( d . 
utah 1982 ) . 
u.s. v. kraase , 340 f. supp . 
147 ( e.d . 
wis . 
1972 ) . 
u.s. v. gross , 313 f. supp . 
1330 . 
( s.d . 
ind . 
1970 ) , aff 'd on other grounds , 451 f.2d 1355 ( 7th cir . 
1971 ) . 
arnold v. cleveland , 616 n.e.2d 163 ( ohio 1993 ) . 
state v. fennell , 382 s.e.2d 231 ( n.c . 
1989 ) . 
u.s. v. sandidge , 520 a.2d 1057 ( d.c. ) , cert . 
denied , 108 s.ct . 
193 ( 1987 ) . 
kalodimos v. village of morton grove , 470 n.e.2d 266 ( ill . 
1984 ) . 
masters v. state , 653 s.w.2d 944 ( tex.app . 
1983 ) . 
city of east cleveland v. scales , 460 n.e.2d 1126 ( ohio app . 
1983 ) . 
state v. vlacil , 645 p.2d 677 ( utah 1982 ) . 
in re atkinson , 291 n.w.2d 396 ( minn . 
1980 ) . 
state v. rupp , 282 n.w.2d 125 ( iowa 1979 ) . 
commonwealth v. davis , 343 n.e.2d 847 ( mass . 
1976 ) . 
burton v. sills , 248 a.2d 521 ( n.j. 1968 ) , appeal dismissed , 394 u.s. 812 ( 1969 ) . 
harris v. state , 432 p.2d 929 ( nev . 
1967 ) . 
