Gingrey’s Response to Obama’s Gun Control Proposals Speech

My Congressman Dr. Phil Gingrey (R-11) posted the following on his website today:

Today, President Obama and Vice President Biden held a press conference to discuss their gun control agenda, some of which would have to be legislated by Congress and some of which the President believes he can enact through executive orders. First of all, the President should not govern this way. Simply put, under no circumstances should he be allowed to unilaterally impose his gun control agenda on us in this fashion — Congress should be where this debate takes place, not in the Oval Office between the President and his liberal cronies. After listening to the President speak today, I want to assure my constituents that I do not support his plan and will continue working against it. Please read on to see my thoughts and track record on the Second Amendment.

The right to bear arms is a constitutional guarantee that ensures law-abiding citizens the right to protect and defend themselves and their families. The Obama administration’s attempt to implement radical gun control policies through executive orders is a gross violation of our Second Amendment rights. The President’s announcement today of 23 executive actions is another example of federal overreach and an end-run around Congress. I will work with House Republicans to oppose the restrictions the President put forth.

Safeguarding our Second Amendment rights is of paramount importance, and throughout my tenure in Congress, I’ve worked—and will continue working— to preserve those rights. The National Rifle Association (NRA), of which I’m a member, has consistently graded my voting record “A+.” Over a 10-year period, I’ve supported Second Amendment and sportsmen’s rights legislation 38 out of 38 times.

Since taking office, I’ve authored or co-sponsored 56 bills to protect or strengthen our Second Amendment rights, including the following:

Fairness in Firearms Testing
This Congress, I will reintroduce the Fairness in Firearms Testing Act. This legislation seeks to improve accountability and consistency in firearms testing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Currently, BATFE lacks guidelines or written procedures for firearm testing, resulting in varying and inconsistent rulings for firearms manufacturers.

In one instance, BATFE threatened to prosecute one gun manufacturer in Heard County, Georgia, less than a year after sending written approval for that company’s product. This policy has contributed to companies going out of business. The Fairness in Firearms Testing Act provides manufacturers access to video documentation of their product testing in order to ensure a level playing field for both manufacturers and BATFE agents.

D.C. Military Right-to-Carry
In the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, I co-filed an amicus brief explaining why the District’s firearms restrictions were a violation of D.C. citizens’ Second Amendment Rights. The court ultimately held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, and thus, ruled that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and requirements that rifles and shotguns in the home be kept unloaded and disassembled or outfitted with a trigger lock to be unconstitutional.

However, the D.C. City Council has circumvented the Supreme Court ruling by enacting stringent requirements on gun ownership, including active duty military. There are currently 40,000 servicemen and women who live in or are stationed on active duty within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.  Unless these individuals are granted a waiver as serving in a law enforcement role, they are subject to the District of Columbia’s onerous and highly restrictive laws on the possession of firearms.

This legislation, which I first offered in 2009, passed the House of Representatives last year. It expresses the Sense of Congress that active military personnel who live or are stationed in Washington, D.C., be exempt from existing District of Columbia firearms restrictions.

As I noted last week, Dr. Gingrey had said that he would support  limits on magazine capacity. President Obama mentioned this  in his speech today, and Gingrey said nothing about it.

I posted a comment on Dr. Gingrey’s website, and sent him an email, thus:

The Honorable Phil Gingrey, M.D.
US House of Representatives

Dr. Gingrey:

Today, as you know, President Obama laid out his vision for the new gun control legislation he will propose in response to the school shootings in Newtown, CT, last month.

As part of his presentation, he said he would pursue laws limiting magazine capacity.

Last week, the Marietta Daily Journal reported in its coverage of a speech you gave in Smyrna, “There are some problems, and maybe these huge magazines even for someone who says, ‘look, I just use an AR-15 for target practice,’ but do you really need to be standing there shooting at a silhouette a shot a second or even quicker with that kind of weapon? For what purpose?” Gingrey asked. “I would be willing to listen to the possibility of the capacity of a magazine.”

Do you intend to support a magazine capacity law?

I respectfully await your response.


We shall see what he says.



4 thoughts on “Gingrey’s Response to Obama’s Gun Control Proposals Speech

  1. James Rosich

    I read President Obama’s list of 23 executive actions that he proposed today. I don’t think his speech is anything to get too worked up about — at least, not yet. His so-called list of “executive actions” is hollow and carries only the weight of his bully pulpit. Most will have little immediate effect. However, now is not the time to be complacent. I am going to send Rep. Gingrey, and our two U.S. Senators, a response to each one of Obama’s proposals.

    I am going to change the subject, and discuss something that I think is a much more serious threat to Second Amendment rights. That is, the New York SAFE Act of 2013, which was recently enacted in the State of New York. Don’t think, ‘it’s not a big deal because I live in a “red” state.’ Look at the big picture. New York is essentially confiscating particular types of firearms AND firearm accessories. I’m sure the legislation will end up in court. If the legislation is upheld, I believe the State should be required to compensate those owners. After all, property is being seized. But, how likely is that to happen? What about those owners who are unable to sell their firearms and/or accessories out-of-state within a year? Going to court at either the State or Federal levels government is nothing more than a crap-shoot these days. Obviously, the problem is that other “blue” states may be emboldened, and ultimately follow New York’s lead. Prior to becoming governor, Gov. Cuomo was New York’s Attorney General, and quite effective. You think Eric Holder is bad. But, can you imagine Gov. Cuomo as a future U.S. Attorney General, Democratic Presidential candidate in 2016, or possibly worst of all, a Supreme Court Justice appointed for life?


    1. Thanks, James.

      I agree the Executive Orders that Obama signed don’t represent a very large threat to our freedoms. For the most part they are just re-stating and building on things that are either already policy, or, especially in the case of providing funding for school guards, were proposed by the NRA as a response to Newtown.

      For me the problem is the other laws that Obama proposed, like the “assault weapons” ban and limits to magazine size. Those will be opposed. In fact, I don’t see that the makeup of the House has changed enough for those to pass.

      Looking at the New York law, I can only rest in the knowledge that I live in a state with a very active gun rights support base, led by GeorgiaCarry. Granted, at least one incoming legislator has already proposed an “assault weapons” ban, which honestly has no chance at all of passing. Looking at history, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and other states still have the 1994 AWB in place, while Georgia has ignored them. Unless the political climate here completely changes, I don’t see New York style bans coming here, or going nationwide.

      As for our chances in court, I am encouraged by the successes of the Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation, who was responsible for the Heller, MacDonald, and a jillion other court victories.

      We should not rest in our vigilance, but we shouldn’t panic either. Steady attention to the truth will win the day.


Comments are closed.