WASHINGTON— On Wednesday, in a House Judiciary Committee markup, Rep. Chip Roy (TX-21) expounded upon the fundamental human right of self-defense, codified in the Second Amendment, that protects our liberties.
Congressman Roy's remarks can be found here and a transcript is available below:
Rep. Chip Roy: "As the gentlelady knows, I too live in Texas, I raised my son, daughter to respect firearms. We shoot them frequently on our property. We shoot semi-automatic weapons on my property. I teach my children how to use them, how to use them safely. I teach them what they are used for, why we have the ability to have firearms, and yes, we use it for hunting. My son shot his first deer."
Chairman Jerry Nadler: Will the gentleman yield? Will the gentleman yield for question?
Rep. Chip Roy: Briefly.
Chairman Jerry Nadler: Very quickly, what do you use semi-automatic weapons for?
Rep. Chip Roy: I use semi-automatic weapons to kill hogs. I use semi-automatic weapons for sport in shooting on our property, but I also have semi-automatic weapons- and I'm getting to the point- because a semi-automatic weapon is a weapon that you can use for self-defense. It is a semi-automatic weapon that you can use to defend yourself against home-invaders, but also, let's be clear, against tyranny.
The gentlelady is talking about the Second Amendment in the context of hunting, as if my rights are reduced in the Constitution to a .410 or a single-shot or a lever action .22, as if that was what was expressly put forth as how we're supposed to be defending ourselves.
Chairman Jerry Nadler : Will the gentleman yield again?
Rep. Chip Roy: Let me go ahead and finish my time, sir, unless we want to add more time.
Chairman Jerry Nadler: Very quickly, question.
Rep. Chip Roy: Well, I need more time, will the gentleman give me another 30 seconds?
Chairman Jerry Nadler: Yes, okay.
Rep. Chip Roy: Okay, I'll yield.
Chairman Jerry Nadler: You said that you could use a semi-automatic weapon to fight tyranny, you mean you'd use it against American troops?
Rep. Chip Roy: The very existence of the second amendment is designed purposefully to empower the people to be able to resist the force of tyranny used against them to step over their natural rights given to them by God. That is why the Second Amendment exists, that is very specifically why the Second Amendment exists. Let's be very clear about that.
Let's rewind the clock a little bit, as I know at least several justices have written in Supreme Court opinions, but about what life looked like in the 19 th century, and what the government was doing to remove the ability of either slave owners, or importantly, free blacks, or importantly, whites who even stood up in defense of blacks or against slavery, and the efforts by the South and the efforts by the strong-arm of government to remove their ability to have firearms. That is an absolute, undeniable, documented, historic fact in our country.
As written by Robert VerBruggen in National Review- and I'm happy to submit this to the record without objection- he writes, "the heart of the problem is that in an effort to stave off rebellion and maintain the racial caste structure that had developed under slavery, state and local governments refused to respect freedmen's Constitutional rights. Crucial to the South's efforts were gun control laws that applied to blacks, and blacks alone." This does not show that- it goes on further, I'm going to take longer, where it goes into the "South's campaign against black gun ownership, not surprisingly began long before the Civil War. Two slave rebellions in the 1820s stoked whites' fears and in response, many legislatures amended their laws prohibiting slaves from carrying firearms to apply to prohibition to free blacks as well. When the government", and he writes further and I agree with this, "when the government has the ability to forbid gun ownership, it has the ability to render groups it dislikes helpless to defend themselves regardless of whether modern gun control accomplishes its purpose of reducing crime, and for the record, there is no evidence, it does." And I agree with that as well.
This is so inherent to the very conversation we're having. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle just blithely dismissed due process. A former judge, even saying, "oh, arguments about due process, you have the opportunity to be heard," after. You have the opportunity to be heard after your rights have been taken away. That's the key issue here.
We are absolutely destroying the bedrock principle that your rights are given to you by God, and that you can't just have to go to the government to ask permission to exercise those rights. And when you do that"
Rep Jamie Raskin: Will the gentleman yield for question? Can I ask Mr. Roy a question? Would you yield for a second?
Rep. Chip Roy: "I mean I need to finish up my time. I already have a few seconds left over from the Chairman. I'm happy to engage with you in colloquies later.
And I would only just, I would point out that my colleague from Maryland, again, just sort of rolled over the fact that it was very expressed in the Supreme Court's ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia. My colleagues like to continually try to connect that to militia service, but we all know that what a militia looked like in 1775 and 1776. I appreciate that the Chairman gave me a little extra time in light of our exchange and questioning. I yield back.