On the recordJune 15, 2016
Well, this solution being proposed, even if it only prevents 1 person, that could mean 50 lives or 100 lives. I think that is important. By the way, it is a dirty trick, Senator, to quote Justice Scalia on this subject. He did make it clear in the Heller decision, as you point out, that the Second Amendment, as the First Amendment or any of the amendments, is not absolute. People say the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting speech, but you can't yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. That is established law. And Justice Scalia, in the Heller decision, said the same thing about the Second Amendment. It is not absolute. There are limitations that can be placed upon it, particularly in the transfer of firearms, and I think that is what we are talking about here. So I commend the Senator, and I believe what we are talking about-- and let me go back to the Intelligence Committee for a minute. It took me 2 or 3 months--maybe I am a slow learner--but as I was sitting in the Intelligence Committee, I finally had two really visceral insights. One was that we are the only people watching the intelligence community; that we have this large apparatus, and we have these small committees in the House and the Senate, and we are the only people watching. That is not relevant to this debate, but that was an important realization imposed upon me, and what I thought was an extraordinary responsibility to pay close attention to what these agencies are doing.…
Source
govinfo.gov




