Ted Budd: “reserving the right to object, I oppose S. 173 for a simple reason. It is unconstitutional in a number of ways. First…”

“reserving the right to object, I oppose S. 173 for a simple reason. It is unconstitutional in a number of ways. First, the bill infringes on the Second Amendment rights of law- abiding citizens by placing burdens on a citizens' right to keep and bear arms within a home. Second, this bill thrusts the Federal Government into an area that is reserved to the States, thus violating the principle of federalism. The laws in Connecticut and the laws in North Carolina should reflect the values and behaviors of those respective States. Simply put, a one- size-fits-all approach doesn't fit the needs of our constituents. Thirdly, Congress does not have the power under the commerce clause of the Constitution to pass the bill. A law-abiding gun owner with a firearm in their home doesn't qualify as interstate commerce, and the Federal Government has no right to infringe upon it. Fourth, this bill duplicates existing laws and practices that are in place at the State level. My colleague mentioned some of those. He mentioned State laws. For example, in North Carolina, we have criminal penalties for adults who improperly store a firearm in a way that allows a minor to obtain it and commit a crime. Finally, this bill would make it harder for law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves and their loved ones.…”