During Debate on HR 424
February 24th, 1998Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to opposition to H.R. 424 for the following reason. Crime control and crime-related sentencing, the stated reason for enacting gun control legislation in the first place, was never intended to be a function of the federal government. Rather, it is a responsibility belonging to the states.
This country’s founders recognized the genius of dividing power amongst federal, state and local governments as a means to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to those persons who might most responsibly influence it. This division of power strictly limited the role of the federal government and, at the same time, anticipated that law enforcement would almost exclusively be the province and responsibility of state and local governments.
Constitutionally, there are only three federal crimes. These are treason against the United States, piracy on the high seas, and counterfeiting. Despite the various pleas for the federal government’s correction of all societal wrongs, a national police force and mandatory sentencing laws which violate the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. are neither prudent nor constitutional.
For this reason I oppose H.R. 424 and the federal government’s attempt to usurp the police power which properly rests with state governments.
| Short permalink: | |
| Source: | http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec98/cr022498minsent.htm |
Similar posts
- 2002: Statement on New Internet Regulations and Expanded Federal Wiretap Powers
- 1997: During Debate on the Juvenile Crime Control Act
- 2007: Statement on HR 180 Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act
- 1997: On Opposing US Intervention in Foreign Matter
- 2004: Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
- 2007: Statement on Public Safety Tax Cut Act
- 2002: Introduction of the Public Safety Tax Cut Act
- 1999: Introduction of Public Safety Tax Cut Act
- 1999: During Debate on the Teacher Empowerment Act
- 2007: Statement on Police Security Protection Act