Order Code IB10071
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Gun Control Legislation in the 107th
Congress
Updated January 11, 2001
William Krouse
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Pro/Con Debate
Gun-Related Statistics
Number of Guns
Criminal Use
Gun Violence and Youth
Suicides, Accidents, and Other Deaths
Self-defense
Recreation
Federal Regulation of Firearms
Federal Regulation of Firearm Transfers
Brady Act Implementation
Federal Firearm Prosecutions
Major Federal Firearm Statutes
Possible Issues for the 107th Congress


IB10071
01-11-01
Gun Control Legislation in the 107th Congress
SUMMARY
Members of Congress continue to debate
Act prohibits mail-order sales and the inter-
the efficacy and constitutionality of the federal
state sales of firearms, prohibits transfers to
regulation of firearms and ammunition. Vari-
minors, limits access to “new” assault weap-
ous federal laws have been enacted since1934
ons, and sets forth penalties and licensing
to promote such regulation. Gun control
requirements for manufacturers, importers,
advocates argue that they curb access by
and dealers.
criminals, juveniles, and other “high-risk”
individuals. They contend that only federal
Crime statistics and mortality data are
measures can succeed in reducing the availabil-
often used in the gun control debate. The
ity of guns. Some seek broad policy changes
number of homicides committed annually with
such as near-prohibition of non-police handgun
a firearm by persons in the 14- to 24-year-old
ownership or the registration of all firearm
age group increased by 173% from 1985 to
owners or firearms. They assert that there is
1993, and then decreased by 47% from 1993
no constitutional barrier to these measures and
to 1999. Meanwhile, firearm fatalities from all
no significant social costs. Others advocate
causes for all age groups decreased by 22%
less comprehensive policies that they maintain
and, for juveniles, they decreased by 40%,
would not impede ownership and legitimate
from 1993 to 1998.
firearm transfers.
The 105th Congress included a provision
At the same time, opposition to federal
in the omnibus appropriations act (P.L. 105-
controls also varies. Gun control opponents
277) that requires federal firearm licensees to
deny that such policies keep firearms out of
sell gun storage and safety devices. The 106th
the hands of high-risk persons; rather, they
Congress made permanent in the FY2000
argue, controls often create burdens for law-
Treasury-Postal appropriations act (P.L. 106-
abiding citizens and infringe upon constitu-
58) a requirement that background checks be
tional rights secured by the Second Amend-
conducted when firearms are redeemed at
ment. Some argue further that widespread
pawnshops.
gun ownership is one of the best deterrents to
crime as well as to potential tyranny, whether
The 106th Congress considered several
by gangs or by government. They may also
proposals concerning federal firearms regula-
criticize the notion of enhancing federal, as
tion. They included proposals to 1) require
opposed to state, police powers.
background checks at gun shows, 2) require
firearm safety locks, and 3) increase controls
The two most significant federal statutes
on assault weapons. None of these proposals,
controlling firearms in the civilian population
however, were enacted into law. While it is
are the National Firearms Act of 1934 and
likely that all of these issues will reemerge in
the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended.
some form during the 107th Congress, the
The 1934 Act established strict registration
proposal to require background checks for all
requirements and a transfer tax on machine
firearm transfers at gun shows is likely to be
guns and short-barreled long guns. The 1968
the issue with the highest visibility.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB10071
01-11-01

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The debate over the extent to which the federal government should regulate firearms
and ammunition was reignited by a rash of shootings, most notably, the incident at
Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, on April 20, 1999. As this debate continues,
several specific gun control issues considered in the 106th Congress are likely to reemerge
in the 107th Congress. In particular, the proposal to require background checks for firearm
transfers by nonlicensed persons at gun shows is likely to be a central issue.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Pro/Con Debate
Through the years, legislative proposals to restrict the availability of firearms to the
public have raised the following questions: What restrictions on firearms are permissible
under the Constitution? Does gun control constitute crime control? Can the nation’s rates
of homicide, robbery, and assault be reduced by the stricter regulation of firearm commerce
or ownership? Would restrictions stop attacks on public figures or thwart deranged persons
and terrorists? Would household, street corner, and schoolyard disputes be less lethal if
firearms were more difficult and expensive to acquire? Would more restrictive gun control
policies have the unintended effect of impairing citizens’ means of self-defense?
In recent years, proponents of gun control legislation have often held that only federal
laws can be effective in the United States. Otherwise, they say, states with few restrictions
will continue to be sources of guns that flow illegally into restrictive states. They believe that
the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which states that “A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall
not be infringed,” (1) is obsolete; or (2) is intended solely to guard against suppression of
state militias by the central government and therefore restricted in scope by that intent; or (3)
does not guarantee a right that is absolute, but one that can be limited by reasonable
requirements. They ask why a private citizen needs any firearm that is not designed primarily
for hunting or other recognized sporting purposes.
Proponents of firearm restrictions have advocated policy changes on specific types of
firearms or components that appear to be useful primarily for criminal purposes or that pose
unusual risks to the public. Fully automatic firearms (i.e., machine guns) and short-barreled
rifles and shotguns have been subject to strict regulation since 1934. Fully automatic firearms
have been banned from private possession since 1986, except for those legally owned prior
to 1986. More recently, “Saturday night specials” (loosely defined as inexpensive, small
handguns), “assault weapons,” ammunition feeding devices with capacities for more than
seven rounds, and certain ammunition have been the focus of control efforts.
Opponents of gun control vary in their positions with respect to specific forms of control
but generally hold that gun control laws do not accomplish what is intended. They argue that
it is as difficult to keep weapons from being acquired by “high risk” individuals, even under
federal laws and enforcement, as it was to stop the sale and use of liquor during Prohibition.
In their view, a more stringent federal firearm regulatory system would only create problems
CRS-1

IB10071
01-11-01
for law-abiding citizens, bring mounting frustration and escalation of bans by gun regulators,
and possibly threaten citizens’ civil rights or safety. Some argue that the low violent crime
rates of other countries have nothing to do with gun control, maintaining instead that multiple
cultural differences are responsible.
Gun control opponents also reject the assumption that the only legitimate purpose of
ownership by a private citizen is recreational (i.e., hunting and target-shooting). They insist
on the continuing need of people for effective means to defend person and property, and they
point to studies that they believe show that gun possession lowers the incidence of crime.
They say that the law enforcement and criminal justice system in the United States has not
demonstrated the ability to furnish an adequate measure of public safety. Some opponents
believe further that the Second Amendment includes a right to keep arms as a defense against
potential government tyranny, pointing to examples in other countries of the use of firearm
restrictions to curb dissent and secure illegitimate government power.
The debate has been intense. To gun control advocates, the opposition is out of touch
with the times, misinterprets the Second Amendment, or is lacking in concern for the
problems of crime and violence. To gun control opponents, advocates are naive in their faith
in the power of regulation to solve social problems, bent on disarming the American citizen
for ideological or social reasons, or moved by irrational hostility to firearms and gun
enthusiasts.
Gun-Related Statistics
Number of Guns. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) reported in a national survey
that in 1994, 44 million people, approximately 35% of households, owned 192 million
firearms, 65 million of which were handguns. Seventy-four percent of those individuals were
reported to own more than one firearm. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
(ATF) estimates that as of the end of 1996, approximately 242 million firearms were available
for sale to or were possessed by civilians in the United States. That total includes roughly 72
million handguns (mostly pistols, revolvers, and derringers), 76 million rifles, and 64 million
shotguns. Most guns available for sale are produced domestically. In recent years, one to
two million handguns were manufactured each year, along with one million rifles and less than
one million shotguns. Annual imports are considerably fewer — from 200,000 to 400,000
handguns, 200,000 rifles, and 100,000 to 200,000 shotguns. Retail prices of guns vary
widely, from $50 or less for inexpensive, low-caliber handguns to more than $1,500 for
high-quality rifles or shotguns. Data are not available on the number of “assault weapons”
in private possession or available for sale, but estimates prepared in 1989 by a firearms expert
associated with the Smithsonian Institution placed the number of such firearms at that time
in the range of one to four million, less than 3% of the number of guns estimated to exist in
the civilian market.
Criminal Use. Reports submitted by state and local law enforcement agencies to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and published annually in the Uniform Crime Reports
indicate that both the crime rate and the violent crime rate have declined since 1981. Of the
homicides in which the type of weapon could be identified, from 60% to almost 70% have
involved firearms each year. The number of homicides and the proportion involving firearms
have declined in recent years. In 1999 of the 12,658 homicides reported, 65% (8,259) were
CRS-2

IB10071
01-11-01
committed with firearms. Of those committed with firearms, 79% (6,498) involved handguns.
From 1993 to1999, the number of firearm-related homicides decreased by an average rate of
nearly 11% annually, for an overall decrease of 49%.
The other principal source of national crime data is the National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS) conducted by the Bureau of the Census and published by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics. The NCVS database provides some information on the weapons used by
offenders, based on victims’ reports. Based on data provided by survey respondents in
calendar year 1998, BJS estimated that, nationwide, firearms were used by offenders in
670,500 criminal incidents, roughly 10% of all violent crimes reported to the NCVS.
Gun Violence and Youth. Youth crime statistics have often been used in the gun
control debate. The number of homicides committed annually with a firearm by persons in
the 14- to 24-year-old age group increased sharply from 1985 to 1993; they have declined
since then, but not to the 1985 level. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1985
to 1993, the number of firearm-related homicides committed by 14- to 17-year-olds increased
by 294%, from 855 to 3,371. From 1993 to 1999, the number of firearm-related homicides
committed by persons in this age group decreased by 65%, from 3,371 to 1,165.
From 1985 to 1993, firearm-related homicides committed by 18- to 24-year-olds
increased by 142%, from 3,374 to 8,171. From 1993 to 1999, firearm-related homicides
committed by persons in this age group decreased by 43%, from 8,717 to 4,973. For further
information, see Homicide Trends in the United States, by James Alan Fox, at
[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/homtrnd.htm].
Although gun-related violence in schools is statistically a rare event, a Department of
Justice survey indicated that 12.7% of students age 12 to 19 reported knowing a student who
brought a firearm to school. For further information, see CRS Report RL30482, The Safe
and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program: Background and Context
, by Edith
Fairman Cooper.
Suicides, Accidents, and Other Deaths. Firearm fatalities have decreased continuously
since 1993. The source of national data on firearm deaths is the publication Vital Statistics,
published each year by the National Center for Health Statistics. Firearm deaths reported by
coroners in each state are presented in four categories: homicides and legal intervention,
suicides, accidents, and unknown circumstances. In 1998, a total of 30,708 firearm deaths
occurred, according to such reports. Of this total, 12,102 were homicides or due to legal
intervention; 17,424 were suicides; 866 were unintentional (accidental) shootings; and 316
were of unknown cause. From 1993 to 1998, firearm-related deaths decreased by an average
rate of 5% annually, for an overall decrease of 22%. Also in 1998, there were 1,971 juvenile
(under 18 years of age) deaths attributed to firearms. Of the juvenile total, 1,062 were
homicides or due to legal intervention; 648 were suicides; 207 were unintentional; and 54
were of unknown cause. From 1993 to 1998, firearm-related deaths for juveniles have
decreased by an average rate of 10% annually, for an overall decrease of 40%.
Self-defense. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCVS data from 1987 to
1992 indicate that in each of those years, roughly 62,200 victims of violent crime (1% of all
victims of such crimes) used guns to defend themselves. Another 20,000 persons each year
used guns to protect property. Persons in the business of self-protection (police officers,
armed security guards) may have been included in the survey. Another source of information
CRS-3

IB10071
01-11-01
on the use of firearms for self-defense is the “National Self Defense Survey” conducted by
criminology professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University in the spring of 1993. Citing
responses from 4,978 households, Dr. Kleck estimated that handguns have been used 2.1
million times per year for self-defense, and that all types of guns have been used
approximately 2.5 million times a year for that purpose, during the 1988-1993 period.
Why do these numbers vary? Law enforcement agencies do not collect information on
the number of times civilians use firearms to defend themselves or their property against
attack. Such data have been collected in household surveys. The contradictory nature of the
available statistics may be partially explained by methodological factors. That is, these and
other criminal justice statistics reflect what is reported to have occurred, not necessarily the
actual number of times certain events occur. Victims and offenders are sometimes reluctant
to be candid with researchers. So, the number of criminal incidents can only be estimated,
making it difficult to state with certainty the accuracy of statistics such as the number of times
firearms are used in self-defense. For this and other reasons, criminal justice statistics often
vary when different methodologies are applied.
Survey research can be limited, since it is difficult to produce statistically significant
findings from small incident populations. For example, the sample in the National Self-
Defense Survey might have been too small, given the low incidence rate and the inherent
limitations of survey research.
Recreation. According to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), in 1994 recreation was
the most common motivation for owning a firearm. There were approximately 15 million
hunters, about 35% of gun owners, in the United States and about the same number and
percentage of gun owners engaged in sport shooting in 1994. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service reported that 31.6 million persons purchased hunting licenses or permits in 1993 and,
according to the National Sporting Goods Association, in that year approximately 18.5
million persons took part in firearms sporting activities.
Federal Regulation of Firearms
As stated in the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended (P.L. 90-618; Title 18, United
States Code, Chapter 44), the purpose of federal firearm regulation is to assist federal, state,
and local law enforcement in the ongoing effort to reduce crime and violence. In the same
act, however, Congress also stated that the intent of the law is not to place any undue or
unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens in regard to the lawful acquisition, possession,
or use of firearms for hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other
lawful activity.
Indeed, issues related to federal firearm regulation currently under debate generally
revolve around the following questions. One, who should be ineligible to possess firearms?
Two, what types of firearms are appropriate for statutorily enumerated lawful firearm
activities? Three, when, where, and how is it appropriate to check persons seeking to acquire
a firearm for possession eligibility?
Federal Regulation of Firearm Transfers. Under current law, federal firearm licensees
(hereafter referred to as licensees) may ship, transport, and receive firearms that have moved
CRS-4

IB10071
01-11-01
in interstate and foreign commerce. Licensees are currently required to verify with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) through a background check that nonlicensed persons
are eligible to possess a firearm before subsequently transferring a firearm to them. Licensees
must also verify the identity of nonlicensed transferees by inspecting a government-issued
identity document, e.g., a driver’s license.
Under current law, there are 9 classes prohibited from possessing firearms: 1) persons
convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year; 2)
fugitives from justice; 3) drug users, or addicts; 4) persons adjudicated mental defectives, or
committed to mental institutions; 5) unauthorized immigrants; 6) persons dishonorably
discharged from the Armed Forces; 7) U.S. citizenship renunciates; 8) persons under court-
order restraints related to harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of
such intimate partner; and 9) persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence (18 U.S.C.
§ 922(d)).
Licensees may engage in interstate transfers of firearms between themselves without
conducting background checks. While they may transfer long guns (rifles or shotguns) to
out-of-state residents, as long as there are in-person meetings and such transfers would not
knowingly be in violation of the laws of the state in which the nonlicensed transferees reside,
they may not transfer handguns to unlicensed out-of-state residents. Transfer of handguns
by licensees to anyone under 21-years-of-age is prohibited, as is the transfer of long guns to
anyone under 18-years-of-age (18 U.S.C. § 922(b)). Also, licensees are required to submit
a “multiple sales reports” to the Secretary of the Treasury if any person purchases two or
more handguns within 5 business days.
Furthermore, licensees are required to maintain records on all acquisitions and
dispositions of firearms. They are obligated to respond to federal agents requesting firearm
tracing information within 24 hours. Under certain circumstances, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agents may inspect, without search warrants, their business
premises, inventory, and records.
On the other hand, nonlicensees are prohibited from acquiring firearms from out-of-state
sources (except for long guns acquired from licensees under the scenario described above).
Nonlicensees are also prohibited from transferring firearms to any persons who they have
reasonable cause to believe are not residents of the state in which the transaction occurs. In
addition, since 1986, it has been a federal offense for nonlicensees to knowingly transfer a
firearm to prohibited persons. Finally, since 1994, it has been a federal offense for any
nonlicensed person to transfer a handgun to anyone under 18-years-of-age (there are
exceptions to this law related to employment, ranching, farming, target practice, and hunting)
(18 U.S.C. § 922(x)).
Brady Act Implementation. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, since the
implementation of the Brady Act on February 29, 1994, through calender year 1999, over 22
million firearm background checks were completed, resulting in 536,000 denials. During the
interim period of the Brady Act (phase I), from February 1994 through November 1998, there
was a waiting period of up to 5 days for handgun transfers in states without instant check
systems. Nearly 13 million firearm background checks were completed, resulting in 312,000
denials.
CRS-5

IB10071
01-11-01
Phase II and the permanent provisions of the Brady Act became effective on November
30, 1998. As part of phase II, the Federal Bureau of Investigation rolled out the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Through NICS, and under the
permanent Brady provisions, background checks are conducted of applicants for both hand
and long gun transfers. In 15 states, state agencies serve as points of contact (POCs), and
conduct full background checks for both long guns and handguns. In 11 states, state agencies
conduct partial background checks for handguns only. In POC states, federal firearm
licensees contact the state agency rather than the FBI. In non-POC states, federal firearm
licensees contact the FBI directly through the NICS system.
During the first 13 months of NICS operation (through December 31, 1999), the FBI
received over 8.6 million requests from state agencies and federal firearm licensees. Of this
number, about half were handled by the FBI, and the other half were handled by state
agencies. Of total checks, 2.4% (312,000) resulted in denials. Over 70% of denials occurred
because the applicant was a felon or was under felony indictment. The next most common
reason for denial, about 13% of cases, was a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction or
restraining order. For further information on phase II, see Background Checks for Firearm
T r a n s f e r s , 1 9 9 9
( W a s h i n g t o n , J u n e 2 0 0 0 ) , a t
[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/bcft99.htm].
According to GAO, about 75% of the NICS checks handled by the FBI resulted in
immediate determinations of eligibility. Of the remaining 25% that resulted in a non-definitive
response, neither a “proceed” nor a denial, 80% were turned around within 2 hours. The
remaining 20% of delayed transactions took hours or days for the FBI NICS examiners to
reach a final determination. In many cases these sales were delayed because there was an
outstanding charge without a final disposition against the person seeking to purchase the
firearm. Such cases necessitate that the FBI examiners contact local or state authorities for
additional information. Under current law, the FBI is authorized to delay the sale for 3
business days in order to determine the outcome of the charge and, thus, establish the
eligibility of the transferee to possess a firearm.
NICS system availability -- how regularly the system can be accessed during business
hours and not delay legitimate firearm transfers -- has also been a source of complaint. GAO
found, however, that in the first year of NICS operation, the FBI had achieved its system
availability goal of 98% for 4 months. System availability for the remaining 8 months
averaged 95.4%. For further information, see GAO Report GGD/AIMD-00-64, Gun
Control: Implementation of the National Instant Criminal Background System
(Washington,
February 2000).
For state agencies, background checks may not be as expeditious. Background checks
through state agencies, however, may be more thorough, since state agencies may have
greater access to databases and records that are not available through NICS. For further
information, see National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS): Operations
Report (November 30 1998 - December 31, 1999)
(Washington, revised August 1, 1999), at
[http://www.fbi.gov/programs/nics/index.htm], click on “NICS One Year Report.”
Federal Firearm Prosecutions. Regarding enforcement of the Brady Act, from
November 1998 through June 2000, the FBI referred 134,522 Brady-related cases to the
ATF, and 37,926 of these cases were referred to ATF field offices for investigation.
CRS-6

IB10071
01-11-01
According to ATF, in FY2000 there were 1,485 defendants charged with firearm-related
violations as a result of NICS checks under Brady. Of these defendants, 1,157 were charged
with providing falsified information to federal firearm licensees (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)),
another 86 were persons ineligible to posses firearms under the domestic violence gun ban (18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(8) and (9)), and 136 were convicted felons (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, however, federal firearm prosecutions
decreased by 19% from 1992 to 1996, they leveled off through 1997, and increased in 1998
and 1999. The decline in federal prosecutions can be attributed in part to a Supreme Court
decision (Bailey v. United States (516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501)) that limited the use of the
charge of using a firearm during a violent or drug-related offense (18 United States Code, §
924(c)). See Federal Firearm Offenders, 1992-98 (with Preliminary Data for 1999)
(Washington, June 2000), at [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ffo98.pdf].
Major Federal Firearm Statutes. Two major federal statutes regulate the commerce
in firearms, or their ownership: the National Firearms Act of 1934 (26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq.)
and the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended (18 U.S.C. Ch. 44, § 921 et seq.).
The National Firearms Act was originally designed to make it difficult to obtain types
of firearms perceived to be especially lethal or to be the chosen weapons of “gangsters,” most
notably machine guns and short-barreled long guns. This law also regulates firearms, other
than pistols or revolvers, that can be concealed on a person (e.g., pen, cane, and belt buckle
guns). It taxes all aspects of the manufacture and distribution of such weapons. And, it
compels the disclosure (through registration with the Secretary of the Treasury) of the
production and distribution system from manufacturer to buyer.
The Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, contains the principal federal restrictions on
domestic commerce in small arms and ammunition. The statute requires all persons
manufacturing, importing, or selling firearms as a business to be federally licensed; prohibits
the interstate mail-order sale of all firearms; prohibits interstate sale of handguns generally,
sets forth categories of persons to whom firearms or ammunition may not be sold (such as
persons under a specified age or with criminal records); authorizes the Secretary of the
Treasury to prohibit the importation of non-sporting firearms; requires that dealers maintain
records of all commercial gun sales; and establishes special penalties for the use of a firearm
in the perpetration of a federal drug trafficking offense or crime of violence. Transactions
between persons “not engaged in the business” are not covered by the Act. These
transactions and other matters such as possession, registration, and the issuing of licenses to
the owners of firearms maybe covered by state laws or local ordinances. It also prohibits
federal firearm licensees from selling or delivering a rifle or shotgun to a person under 18
years of age, or a handgun to a person under 21 years of age.
Supplementing federal law, many state firearm laws are stricter than federal law. For
example, some states require permits to obtain firearms and impose a waiting period for
firearm transfers. Other states are less restrictive, but state law cannot preempt federal law.
Federal law serves as the minimum standard in the United States.
The following principal changes have been enacted to the Gun Control Act since 1968.
CRS-7

IB10071
01-11-01
! The “Firearms Owners Protection Act,” McClure-Volkmer Amendments
(P.L. 99-308, 1986) eases certain interstate transfer and shipment
requirements for long guns, defines the term “engaged in the business,”
eliminates some record-keeping requirements, and bans the private
possession of machine guns not legally owned prior to 1986.
! The “Armor Piercing Ammunition” Ban (P.L. 99-408, 1986, amended in P.L.
103-322, 1994) prohibits the manufacture, importation and delivery of
handgun ammunition composed of certain metal substances and certain full-
jacketed ammunition.
! The Federal Energy Management Improvement Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-615)
requires that all toys or firearm look-alikes have a blazed orange plug in the
barrel, denoting that it is a non-lethal imitation.
! The Undetectable Firearms Act (P.L. 100-649, 1988), also known as the
“plastic gun” legislation, bans the manufacture, import, possession, and
transfer of firearms not detectable by security devices.
! The Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-647), as originally
enacted, was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court (United
States v. Lopez
, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), April 26, 1995). The Act prohibited
possession of a firearm in a school zone (on the campus of a public or private
school or within 1,000 feet of the grounds). In response to the Court’s
finding that the Act exceeded Congress’s authority to regulate commerce,
the 104th Congress included a provision in P.L. 104-208 that amended the
Act to require federal prosecutors to include evidence that the firearms
“moved in” or affected interstate commerce.
! The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 1993 (P.L. 103-159) requires
that background checks be completed on all nonlicensed person seeking to
obtain firearms from federal firearm licensees.
! The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322)
prohibits the manufacture or importation of semiautomatic assault weapons
and large capacity ammunition feeding devices (for a 10-year period). In the
case of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, the ban on importation
applies to those devices manufactured after September 1994. This Act
provides an exception for the transfer, sale, or possession of semiautomatic
assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully
possessed on the date of enactment. This Act also bans the sale or transfer
of handguns and handgun ammunition to, or possession of handguns and
handgun ammunition by, juveniles (under 18 years of age) without prior
written consent from the juvenile’s parent or legal guardian; exceptions
related to employment, ranching, farming, target practice, and hunting are
provided. In addition, the Act disqualifies persons under court orders related
to domestic abuse from receiving a firearm from any person or possessing a
firearm. It also enhances penalties for the criminal use of firearms and makes
other changes to existing law.
! Federal Domestic Violence Gun Ban (the Lautenberg Amendment, in the
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY1997, P.L. 104-208)
prohibits persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
from possessing guns and ammunition. The ban applies retroactively,
regardless of when the offense was adjudicated. On January 21, 1997, the
Fraternal Order of Police (civil case 97-145) filed suit to challenge the law’s
CRS-8

IB10071
01-11-01
retroactivity as unconstitutional. On August 28, 1998, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia found in favor of the Fraternal Order of
Police regarding provisions of the Lautenberg Amendment to be in violation
of the equal protection clause. A motion for rehearing, however, was filed by
the Department of Justice. The U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of
Columbia reversed its earlier ruling on April 16, 1999, stating that “there is
no fundamental right to possess a gun in a community service job and that the
Fraternal Order of Police had presented no evidence that officers who lost
their jobs because of the law were denied due process.” It is reported that the
Fraternal Order of Police will appeal this ruling as far as the Supreme Court.
! The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L.
105-277), requires all federal firearm licensees to offer for sale gun storage
and safety devices. It also bans firearm transfers to, or possession by,
nonimmigrants who have overstayed their the terms of their temporary visa.
! The Treasury, Postal and General Government Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-
58) requires that background checks be conducted when former firearm
owners seek to redeem a firearm that they sold to a pawnshop.
Possible Issues for the 107th Congress
The debate over the extent to which the federal government should regulate firearms and
ammunition was reignited by a rash of shootings, most notably, the incident at Columbine High
School in Littleton, CO, on April 20, 1999. As this debate is sure to be continued in the 107th
Congress, gun control issues considered in the 106th Congress are likely to reemerge. In
particular, the proposal to require background checks for firearm transfers by nonlicensed
persons at gun shows is likely to the centerpiece of pro-gun control legislative proposals.
Federal law does not regulate gun shows specifically. Federal law regulating firearms
transfers, however, is applicable to such transfers at gun shows. Federal firearm licensees –
those licensed by the federal government to manufacture, import, or deal in firearms – are
required to conduct background checks on nonlicensed persons seeking to obtain a firearm
from them, by purchase or exchange. Conversely, nonlicensed persons – those persons who
transfer firearms, but who do not meet the statutory test of being “engaged in the business”
– are not required to conduct such checks.
To some, this may appear to be an incongruity in the law. Why should licensees be
required to conduct checks at gun shows, and not nonlicensees? To others, opposed to further
federal regulation of firearms, it may appear to be a continuance of the status quo, i.e., non-
interference by the federal government into private firearm transfers within state lines. While
others, seeking to increase federal regulation of firearms, may view the absence of background
checks for firearm transfers between nonlicensed persons as a loophole in the law that needs
to be closed. At issue for Congress is whether federal regulation of firearms should be
expanded to include private firearm transfers at gun shows and other similar venues.
It is currently unclear what the Bush Administration’s position will be on gun shows and
background checks. During the presidential candidate debates, then candidate, now President-
elect George W. Bush, stated that he favored extending background checks to all firearm
transfers at gun shows. For further information on gun shows, see Gun Shows: Brady Checks
CRS-9

IB10071
01-11-01
and Crime Gun Traces (Washington: January 1999). See: [http://www.atf.treas.gov./], click
on “Publications.”
Other issues considered in the 106th Congress that are likely to emerge in the 107th
Congress include: 1) requiring child safety locks, 2) increasing regulation of semiautomatic
assault weapons, 3) widening the importation ban on high capacity ammunition feeding
devices, and 4) prohibiting certain violent juvenile offenders from possessing firearms.
CRS-10