Order Code RL32842
Gun Control Legislation
Updated April 27, 2007
William J. Krouse
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

---

Gun Control Legislation
Summary
Congress has continued to debate the efficacy and constitutionality of federal
regulation of firearms and ammunition, with strong advocates arguing for and against
greater gun control. Although several dozen gun control-related proposals were
introduced in recent Congresses, only a handful of those bills received significant
legislative action. Nevertheless, the tragic events at Virginia Tech on April 16 could
serve to renew the long-simmering gun control debate in the United States. As a
consequence of those events, the 110th Congress could consider proposals to limit the
availability of large capacity ammunition feeding devices (LCAFDs) that hold over
10 rounds. Federal law included limitations on such devices for 10 years, from
September 1994 to September 2004, as part of the semiautomatic assault weapons
ban. Congress could also consider proposals to improve the Brady background
checks system. Representative Carolyn McCarthy has introduced three related bills.
H.R. 1022 would ban any further production or importation of LCAFDs. H.R. 1859,
the Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007, would prohibit
the transfer of semiautomatic assault weapons with LCAFDs. And, H.R. 297 would
provide incentives to states to update disqualifying records that are accessed by the
Brady background check system.
In addition, Congress could reconsider funding limitations placed on the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which are often referred to as the
“Tiahrt amendment,” for their sponsor in the FY2004 appropriations cycle,
Representative Todd Tiahrt. Senator Charles Schumer has introduced a bill (S. 77)
that would repeal portions of the Tiahrt amendment that prohibit the public
disclosure of firearm trace and multiple handgun sales report data.
Furthermore, the 110th Congress could possibly reconsider several gun control
proposals that were considered in the previous Congress. During the 109th Congress,
for example, the House amended Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act
of 2005 (H.R. 1751) to authorize certain federal court judges and officials to carry
firearms for personal protection. The Senate passed a different version of H.R. 1751
that included similar provisions, as well as provisions designed to clarify and expand
the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA; P.L. 108-277) — a law that gives
concealed carry privileges to qualified on-duty and retired law enforcement officers.
In the 110th Congress, Senator Patrick Leahy has introduced a bill (S. 376) to amend
LEOSA, but the Senate-passed court security bill (S. 279) does not include
provisions similar to those passed in the 109th Congress that would authorized certain
federal court officials to carry firearms for self defense purposes.
Other gun control-related issues that may reemerge in the 110th Congress include
(1) retaining Brady background check records for approved transactions to enhance
terrorist screening, (2) more strictly regulating certain long-range fifty caliber rifles,
(3) further regulating certain firearms previously defined in statute as “assault
weapons,” and (4) requiring background checks for firearm transfers at gun shows.
This report will be updated to reflect legislative action.

---

Contents
Legislative Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Legislative Action in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Pro/Con Debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Gun Related Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
How Many Guns Are in The United States? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
How Often Are Guns Used in Homicides? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
How Often Are Guns Used in Non-lethal Crimes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
How Prevalent Is Gun Violence Among Youth? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
How Prevalent Are Gun-Related Fatalities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
What About The Recreational Use of Guns? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Federal Regulation of Firearms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The National Firearms Act (NFA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Firearm Transfer and Possession Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Licensed Dealers and Firearm Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Private Firearm Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Interim Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Permanent Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
POC and Non-POC States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Brady Background Check Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
System Delayed Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Systems Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Federal Firearm Prosecutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Possible Issues for the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Legislative Action in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Enacted Legislation and Related Amendment in the 109th Congress . . . . . 13
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
House Judiciary Committee Considered Gun Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
ATFE Modernization and Reform Act of 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Firearms Corrections and Improvements Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Firearm Commerce Modernization Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
NICS Improvement Act of 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Gun Provisions Attached to Funding and Crime Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
District of Columbia Handgun Ban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Sex Offenders and Firearm Possession Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Arming Judicial Officials and Attorneys, and LEOSA
Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
ATF Appropriations and Authorizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Brady Background Check Fee and Record Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

---

Other Salient Gun Control Legislative Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Brady Background Checks and Terrorist Watch Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Long-Range Fifty Caliber Rifles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Gun Shows and Private Firearm Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix. Major Federal Firearm and Related Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

---

Gun Control Legislation
Legislative Developments
Congress has continued to debate the efficacy and constitutionality of further
federal regulation of firearms and ammunition. Several dozen gun control-related
proposals were introduced in recent Congresses, but only a handful of those bills
received significant legislative action. Nevertheless, the recent tragic events at
Virginia Tech on April 16 could serve to renew the national gun control debate.
Legislative Action in the 110th Congress
Although the 110th Congress has yet to act on gun control legislation,
Representatives Carolyn McCarthy and John Dingell are reportedly working to bring
Our Lady of Peace Act (H.R. 4757) back to the House floor.1 This measure would
provide stronger incentives to states to place disqualifying records in the National
Instant Criminal Background Checks System maintained by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) for purposes of checking firearms transfer and possession
eligibility.
Congress could also consider legislation to limit the availability of large
capacity ammunition feeding devices, which were limited under federal law from
September 1994 to September 2004.2 Representative McCarthy has introduced a bill
(H.R. 1859) that would ban the transfer of a semiautomatic assault weapons with
larger capacity ammunition feeding devices, as well as a bill (H.R. 1022) to reinstate
the assault weapons ban that expired in September 2004.
In addition, Congress could reconsider funding limitations placed on the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which are often referred to as
the “Tiahrt amendment,” for their sponsor in the FY2004 appropriations cycle,
Representative Todd Tiahrt. Senator Charles Schumer has introduced a bill (S. 77)
that would repeal portions of the Tiahrt amendment that prohibit the public
disclosure of firearm trace and multiple handgun sales report data.3
1 Alexandra Marks, “Congress to Revisit Background Checks for Gun Buyers,” Christian
Science Monitor, April 23, 2007, p. 2.
2 For further information, see CRS Report RL32585, Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban,
by William J. Krouse.
3 For further information, see CRS Report RS22458, Gun Control: Statutory Limitations on
ATF Firearms Trace Data and Multiple Handgun Sales Reports, by William J. Krouse.

---

CRS-2
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 more
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,” is being
misread in today’s modern society. They argue that the Second Amendment: (1) is
now obsolete, with the presence of professional police forces; (2) was 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 in today’s modern society 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 they feel are 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 and registered with the
Secretary of the Treasury on May 19, 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 intended
to stop the sale and use of liquor during Prohibition. In their view, a more stringent
federal firearm regulatory system would only create problems 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.

---

CRS-3
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 in all settings. 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
Crime and mortality statistics are often used in the gun control debate.
According to a recent study, however, none of the existing sources of statistics
provide either comprehensive, timely, or accurate data with which to definitively
assess whether there is a causal connection between firearms and violence.4 For
example, existing data do not show whether the number of people shot and killed
with semiautomatic assault weapons declined during the 10-year period (1994-2004)
those firearms were banned from further proliferation in the United States.5
Presented below are data on the following topics: (1) the number of guns in the
United States, (2) firearm-related homicides, (3) non-lethal/firearm-related
victimizations, (4) gun violence and youth, (5) gun-related mortality rates, (6) use of
firearms for personal defense, and (7) recreational use of firearms. In some cases, the
data presented below are over a decade old, but remain the most recent available.
How Many Guns Are in The United States? 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.6 Seventy-four percent of those individuals were reported to own
more than one firearm.7 According to the then ATF, by the end of 1996
approximately 242 million firearms were available for sale to or were possessed by
4 National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (Washington,
2005), p. 48.
5 Ibid., p. 49.
6 Jens Ludwig and Phillip J. Cook, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership
and Use of Firearms, NCJ 165476, May 1999, 12 pp., available at [http://www.ncjrs.org/
pdffiles/165476.pdf].
7 Ibid.

---

CRS-4
civilians in the United States.8 That total includes roughly 72 million handguns
(mostly pistols, revolvers, and derringers), 76 million rifles, and 64 million
shotguns.9 By 2000, the number of firearms had increased to approximately 259
million: 92 million handguns, 92 million rifles, and 75 million shotguns.10
Most guns available for sale are produced domestically. In recent years, 1 to 2
million handguns were manufactured each year, along with 1 million rifles and fewer
than 1 million shotguns.11 Annual imports are considerably smaller — from 200,000
to 400,000 handguns, 200,000 rifles, and 100,000 to 200,000 shotguns.12 Retail
prices of guns vary widely, from $75 or less for inexpensive, low-caliber handguns
to more than $1,500 for higher-end standard-production rifles or shotguns.13 Data are
not available on the number of “assault weapons” in private possession or available
for sale, but one study estimated that there were 1.5 million privately owned assault
weapons in 1994.14
How Often Are Guns Used in Homicides? Reports submitted by state
and local law enforcement agencies to the FBI and published annually in the Uniform
Crime Reports indicate that the violent crime rate has declined from 1981 through
2004; however, the number of homicides and the proportion involving firearms have
increased in recent years. From 1993 to 1999, the number of firearm-related
homicides decreased by an average rate of nearly 11% annually, for an overall
decrease of 49%. From 2000 to 2003, known firearm-related homicides increased
by

! 2% (to 8,661) in 2000;
! 2.6% (to 8,890) in 2001;
! 7.2% (to 9,528) in 2002; and
! 1.4% (to 9,659) in 2003.15
8 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, Commerce in
Firearms in the United States, February 2000, pp. A3-A5.
9 Ibid., pp. A3-A5.
10 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Firearms
Commerce in the United States 2001/2002, ATF P 9000.4, April 2002, pp. E1-E3.
11 Ibid., pp. E1-E3.
12 Ibid.
13 Ned Schwing, 2005 Standard Catalog of Firearms: The Collector’s Price and Reference
Guide, 15th edition (Iola, Wisconsin, 2005), 1,504 pp.
14 Christopher S. Koper, Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts
on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 (Washington, July 2004), 108 pp.
15 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States,
2004 (Washington, October 25, 2005), p. 19.

---

CRS-5
In 2004, firearms-related homicides decreased by 3.2% (to 9,326).16 In 2005,
however, firearms-related homicides increased again by 7.7% (to 10,100, according
to preliminary data).17
How Often Are Guns Used in Non-lethal Crimes? 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 (BJS). 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 2003, BJS estimated that, nationwide, there were 5.4
million violent crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple
assault). Weapons were used in about 1.2 million of these criminal incidents.
Firearms were used by offenders in about 367,000 of these incidents, or roughly
7%.18
How Prevalent Is Gun Violence Among 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 returned to the
1985 level. According to the BJS, 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 2000, the number of firearm-related homicides committed by persons
in this age group decreased by 68%, from 3,371 to 1,084. 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 39%, from 8,171 to 4,988. They increased by 3% to
5,162 in 2000.19 More recent statistics for youth have yet to be reported. Although
gun-related violence in schools is statistically a rare event, a DOJ survey indicated
that 12.7% of students age 12 to 19 reported knowing a student who brought a
firearm to school.20
How Prevalent Are Gun-Related Fatalities? Firearm fatalities have
decreased continuously from 1993 through 2001. 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
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization
Survey, Criminal Victimization, 2003, by Shannan M. Catalano, available online at
[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv03.pdf].
19 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Homicide Trends in the United
States, by James Alan Fox and Marianne W. Zawitz, at [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
homicide/teens.htm].
20 For further information, see CRS Report RL30482, The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Program: Background and Context, by Edith Fairman Cooper.

---

CRS-6
presented in four categories: homicides and legal intervention,21 suicides, accidents,
and unknown circumstances. In 2002, a total of 30,242 firearm deaths occurred,
according to such reports. Of this total, 12,129 were homicides or due to legal
intervention; 17,108 were suicides; 762 were unintentional (accidental) shootings;
and 243 were of unknown cause.22 From 1993 to 2000, firearm-related deaths
decreased by an average rate of nearly 5% annually, for an overall decrease of nearly
28%. As compared to 2000, firearm deaths increased by 3% in 2001. They increased
again by 2% in 2002. Also in 2002, there were 1,443 juvenile (under 18 years of age)
deaths attributed to firearms. Of the juvenile total, 879 were homicides or due to
legal intervention; 423 were suicides; 115 were unintentional; and 26 were of
unknown cause. From 1993 to 2001, firearm-related deaths for juveniles have
decreased by an average rate of 10% annually, for an overall decrease of 56%. As
compared to 2001, they increased slightly in FY2002, by less than 1%.23
How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense? According to BJS,
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.24 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.25 Another source of information 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.26
Why do these numbers vary by such a wide margin? 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 incidents can only be estimated,
21 “Legal interventions” include deaths (in these cases by firearms) that involve legal uses
of force (justifiable homicide or manslaughter) usually by the police.
22 National Vital Statistics System data taken from the Injury Statistics Query and Reporting
System (WISQARS), available at [http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm].
23 Ibid.
24 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns
and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self Defense, and Firearm Theft, NCJ-147003,
April 1994, available at [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt].
25 Ibid.
26 Gary Kleck, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self Defense
with a Gun,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995, available at
[http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html].

---

CRS-7
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 likely low
incidence rate and the inherent limitations of survey research.
What About The Recreational Use of Guns? According to NIJ, in 1994
recreation was the most common motivation for owning a firearm.27 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
1994.28 More recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported that there were
more than 14.7 million persons who were paid license holders in 200329 and,
according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, in that year approximately
15.2 million persons hunted with a firearm and nearly 19.8 million participated in
target shooting.30
Federal Regulation of Firearms
Two major federal statutes regulate the commerce in, and possession of,
firearms: 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. Chapter 44, §921 et seq.).
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 National Firearms Act (NFA)
The NFA 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 Attorney
General) of the production and distribution system from manufacturer to buyer.
27 Jens Ludwig, and Phillip J. Cook, Guns in America: National Survey on Private
Ownership and Use of Firearms, NCJ 165476, May 1999, p. 2.
28 Ibid., p. 3.
29 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Hunting License
Report (December 2, 2004), [http://www.nssf.org/IndustryResearch/PDF/CurrLicSales.pdf].
30 American Sports Data, Inc., The SUPERSTUDY of Sports Participation, available at
[http://www.nssf.org/IndustryResearch/PDF/HistTrendsParticipation.pdf].

---

CRS-8
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA)
As stated in the GCA, 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.
The GCA, 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.
Private transactions between persons “not engaged in the business” are not
covered by the GCA. These transactions and other matters such as possession,
registration, and the issuance of licenses to firearm owners may be covered by state
laws or local ordinances. As amended by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention
Act, 1993 (P.L. 103-159), the GCA requires background checks be completed for all
nonlicensed persons seeking to obtain firearms from federal firearms licensees. For
a listing of other major firearm and related statutes, see the Appendix.
Firearm Transfer and Possession Eligibility. Under current law, there
are nine classes of persons prohibited from possessing firearms: (1) persons
convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year; (2) fugitives from justice; (3) drug users, or addicts; (4) persons adjudicated
mental defectives, or committed to mental institutions; (5) unauthorized immigrants
and most nonimmigrant visitors; (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(g) and (n)).
Since 1994, moreover, it has been a federal offense for any nonlicensed person
to transfer a handgun to anyone under 18 years of age. It has also been illegal for
anyone under 18 years of age to possess a handgun (there are exceptions to this law
related to employment, ranching, farming, target practice, and hunting) (18 U.S.C.
§922(x)).
Licensed Dealers and Firearm Transfers. Under current law, federal
firearms licensees (hereafter referred to as licensees) may ship, transport, and receive
firearms that have moved in interstate and foreign commerce. Licensees are currently
required to verify with the FBI through a background check that nonlicensed persons
are eligible to possess a firearm before subsequently transferring a firearm to them.

---

CRS-9
Licensees must also verify the identity of nonlicensed transferees by inspecting a
government-issued identity document (e.g., a driver’s license).
Licensees may engage in interstate transfers of firearms among themselves
without conducting background checks. Licensees may transfer long guns (rifles or
shotguns) to out-of-state residents, as long as the transactions are face-to-face and
not knowingly in violation of the laws of the state in which the unlicensed transferees
reside. Licensees, however, may not transfer handguns to unlicensed out-of-state
residents. Transfer of handguns by licensees to anyone under 21 years of age is also
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 “multiple sales reports” to the
Attorney General if any person purchases two or more handguns within five business
days.
Furthermore, licensees are required to maintain records on all acquisitions and
dispositions of firearms. They are obligated to respond to ATF agents requesting
firearm tracing information within 24 hours. Under certain circumstances, ATF
agents may inspect, without search warrants, their business premises, inventory, and
gun records.
Private Firearm Transfers. Nonlicensees are prohibited from acquiring
firearms from out-of-state sources (except for long guns acquired from licensees
under the conditions 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. It is also notable that firearm transfers initiated through the
Internet are subject to the same federal laws as transfers initiated in any other
manner.31
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
After seven years of extensive public debate, Congress passed the Brady
Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-159; the “Brady Act”)32 as an
amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, requiring background checks for firearm
transfers between federally licensed firearm dealers and non-licensed persons. The
Brady Act included both interim and permanent provisions.
Interim Provisions. Under the interim provisions, which were in effect
through November 1998, background checks were required for handgun transfers,
and licensed firearm dealers were required to contact local chief law enforcement
officers (CLEOs) to determine the eligibility of prospective customers to be
transferred a handgun. The CLEOs were given up to 5 business days to make such
eligibility determinations.
31 For further information, see CRS Report RS20957, Internet Firearm Sales, by T.J.
Halstead.
32 107 Stat. 1536, November 30, 1993.

---

CRS-10
Permanent Provisions. Under the Brady permanent provisions, Congress
required the Attorney General to establish a national instant criminal background
check system (NICS) by November 1998. In turn, the Attorney General delegated
this responsibility to the FBI. Today, the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information
Services (CJIS) division maintains the NICS. Under the Brady permanent
provisions, federally licensed firearm dealers are required to contact the FBI or state
authorities, who in turn contact the FBI, to determine whether prospective customers
are eligible to be transferred a handgun or long gun. The FBI and state authorities
have up to 3 business days to make such eligibility determinations. It is notable that
federal firearms laws serve as the minimum standard in the United States. States may
choose, and have chosen, to regulate firearms more strictly. For example, some
states require set waiting periods and/or licenses for firearm transfers and possession.
POC and Non-POC States. While the FBI handles background checks
entirely for some states, other states serve as full or partial points of contact (POCs)
and federal firearms licensees contact a state agency, and the state agency contacts
the FBI for such checks. In 14 states, state agencies serve as full POCs and conduct
background checks for both long gun and handgun transfers. In four states, state
agencies serve as partial POCs for handgun permits, while in another four states, state
agencies serve as partial POCs for handgun transfers only. In these eight partial POC
states, checks for long gun transfers are conducted entirely through the FBI. In the
28 non-POC states, the District of Columbia, and four territories (Guam, Northern
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands), federal firearms licensees
contact the FBI directly to conduct background checks through NICS for both
handgun and long gun checks.
For state agencies (POCs), background checks may not be as expeditious, but
they may be more thorough, since state agencies may have greater access to databases
and records that are not available through NICS. According to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), this is particularly true for domestic violence
misdemeanor offenses and protective orders.33
Brady Background Check Statistics. Through calendar year 2005, nearly
70 million background checks for firearm transfer applications occurred under both
the interim and permanent provisions of the Brady Act.34 Of this number, nearly
1,360,000 background checks, or about 1.9%, resulted in firearm transfers being
denied.35 Under the interim provisions, nearly 13 million firearm background checks
(for handguns) were completed during that four-year period, resulting in 312,000
denials.36 Under the permanent provisions of the Brady Act, over 57 million checks
33 For further information, see GAO, Gun Control: Opportunities to Close Loopholes in the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System, GAO-02-720, July 2002, p. 27.
34 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2005, November 2004, p. 1.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.

---

CRS-11
were completed, resulting in over 1 million denials or a 2% denial rate.37 Nearly 32
million of these checks were completed entirely by the FBI for non-POC states, the
District, and four territories.38 Those checks resulted in a denial rate of 1.5%.39 Over
25 million checks were conducted by full or partial POC states.40 Those checks
resulted in a higher denial rate of 2.3%.41
System Delayed Transfers. NICS eligibility determination rates (how
expeditiously the system makes eligibility determinations) have been controversial.
According to GAO, about 72% of the NICS checks handled by the FBI resulted in
immediate determinations of eligibility. Of the remaining 28% that resulted in a non-
definitive response, neither a “proceed” nor a denial, 80% were turned around within
two hours. The remaining 20% of delayed transactions took hours or days for the
FBI NICS examiners to reach a final determination.42
In many cases firearm transfers 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
three business days in order to determine the outcome of the charge and, thus,
establish the eligibility of the transferee to possess a firearm. The FBI reported that,
from July 2002 through March 2003, the immediate determination rate for NICS
increased to 91%, as compared to less than 77% from November 2001 through July
2002.43
Systems Availability. NICS 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 four months.
System availability for the remaining eight months averaged 95.4%.44 The FBI
reports that NICS service availability was increased to 99% in FY2001 and
FY2002.45 During consideration of legislation in the 106th Congress to extend the
Brady Act background check provisions to all firearm transfers at gun shows, the
37 Ibid., p. 2.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
42 For further information, see GAO, Gun Control: Implementation of the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System, GGD/AIMD-00-64, p. 68. (Hereafter cited as GAO,
Implementation of NICS.)
43 See National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS): 2001/2002 Operational
Report, May 2003, p. 8. (Hereafter cited as NICS 2001/2002 Operational Report.)
44 See GAO, Implementation of NICS, p. 94.
45 See NICS 2001/2002 Operational Report, p. 6.

---

CRS-12
capacity of NICS to instantaneously accomplish these checks became a major
stumbling block to enactment.
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. 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 firearms 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 BJS, however, federal firearm prosecutions decreased
by 19% from 1992 to 1996, 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, as
the firearm could not be just incidental to the arrest (18 U.S.C. §924(c)).46
Possible Issues for the 110th Congress
The recent tragic events at Virginia Tech on April 16 that resulted in the deaths
of 32 persons could serve to renew the long-simmering national gun control debate.
Central to the renewed debate in the 110th Congress could be the issue of large
capacity ammunition feeding devices that hold more than ten rounds of
ammunition.47 Congress limited the availability of such devices for 10 years.
However, those statutory limitations were allowed to expire in September 2004,
along with the semiautomatic assault weapons ban. In addition, Congress could
consider measures to improve the NICS, so that disqualifying records are made more
accessible, more expeditiously.
Representative John Dingell, chair of the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, is reportedly working with the National Rifle Association (NRA) to craft
46 See Federal Firearm Offenders, 1992-98 (with Preliminary Data for 1999), June 2000,
at [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ffo98.pdf].
47 Recent press accounts report that the shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, carried two semiautomatic
handguns, a Glock 9 millimeter and Walther .22 caliber. The New York Times reported that
17 spent ammunition feeding devices were recovered at the crime scene. On April 19, 2007,
NBC Nightly News reported that some of those devices could hold up to 30 rounds. See Ian
Urbina and Manny Fernandez, “University Explains the Return of Troubled Student,” New
York Times, April 20, 2007, p. 21; and Brian Williams (anchor) and Pete Williams
(reporter), “Law Enforcement Officials React to NBC’s Airing Cho Seung-Hui’s Video,
Photos Sent to Them,” NBC Nightly News, April 19, 2007.

---

CRS-13
legislation to improve the NICS, or Brady background check system.48
Representative Carolyn McCarthy, meanwhile, has introduced a similar proposal
(H.R. 297), the NICS Improvement Act of 2007, to provide states with incentives to
more promptly provide disqualifying records. As described below, in the 109th
Congress, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security approved a similar measure (H.R. 1415), but no further action was taken on
this bill. An earlier version of this bill (H.R. 4757) passed the House in the 107th
Congress.
In addition, Representative McCarthy has introduced a measure (H.R. 1022) to
expand and reinstate the semiautomatic assault weapons ban. This bill would limit
the availability of large capacity ammunition feeding devices as under prior law, and
it would also bar the further importation of such devices. More recently,
Representative McCarthy introduced a measure (H.R. 1859) that would prohibit the
transfer of semiautomatic assault weapons with large capacity ammunition feeding
devices.
Furthermore, Congress could reconsider funding limitations placed on the ATF,
which are often referred to as the “Tiahrt amendment,” for their sponsor in the
FY2004 appropriations cycle, Representative Todd Tiahrt. Senator Charles Schumer
has introduced a bill (S. 77) that would repeal portions of the Tiahrt amendment that
prohibit the public disclosure of firearm trace and multiple handgun sales report data.
Issues related to the legislation described above are discussed in greater detail below
in the context of past legislative action in the 109th and previous Congresses.
Legislative Action in the 109th Congress
In the 109th Congress, gun control-related legislative action included (1) passage
of two laws; (2) the approval of four bills by the House Judiciary committee, one of
which the House passed; (3) consideration of several amendments to, and provisions
in, appropriations and crime legislation; and (4) the continuation of several funding
conditions and limitations on Department of Justice (DOJ) appropriations. Other
salient firearm-related issues that received some attention included (1) retaining
Brady background check records for approved firearm transactions to enhance
terrorist screening, (2) more strictly regulating certain long-range fifty caliber rifles,
(3) further regulating certain firearms previously defined in statute as “assault
weapons,” and (4) requiring background checks for private firearm transfers at gun
shows.
Enacted Legislation and Related Amendment
in the 109th Congress
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The 109th Congress
reconsidered and passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (P.L. 109-
48 Jonathan Weisman, “Dingell, NRA Working on Bill to Strengthen Background Checks,”
Washington Post, April 20, 2007, p. A10.

---

CRS-14
92).49 This legislation (S. 397) was very similar to a bill considered in the 108th
Congress.50 P.L. 109-92 prohibits certain types of lawsuits against firearm
manufacturers and dealers to recover damages related to the criminal or unlawful use
of their products (firearms or ammunition) by other persons.51 The Senate passed S.
397 on July 29, 2005 by a recorded vote of 65-31 (Recorded Vote Number: 219).
The House Judiciary Committee had previously reported a similar bill (H.R. 800;
H.Rept. 109-124) on June 14. The House considered and passed the Senate-passed
bill (S. 397) by a recorded vote of 283-144 (Roll no. 534) on October 20, 2005.
It is notable that several amendments, which were passed by the Senate in the
108th Congress, were also reconsidered and passed. For example, an amendment
offered by Senator Herb Kohl requires a child safety lock be provided with newly
transferred handguns, and another offered by Senator Larry Craig increases penalties
for using armor piercing handgun ammunition in the commission of a crime of
violence or drug trafficking. Other amendments related to assault weapons or gun
shows, which were passed by the Senate in the previous Congress, however, were not
considered. It is notable that House-passed legislation (H.R. 5672) included a
provision that would have blocked implementation of the child safety lock provision
sponsored by Senator Kohl.
Child Safety Locks and Handguns. As described above, P.L. 109-92
includes a provision that requires a child safety lock be provided with newly
transferred handguns.52 The House passed an amendment, offered by Representative
Marilyn Musgrave, to the FY2007 DOJ appropriations bill (H.R. 5672) that would
have prohibited the expenditure of any funding provided under that bill for the
purposes of enforcing the child safety lock provision in P.L. 109-92. The House
passed H.R. 5672 on June 29, 2006. The Senate reported H.R. 5672, but no further
actions was taken on that bill.
Armor Piercing Ammunition. 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. As described above, P.L. 109-92
includes provisions that (1) increase penalties for using armor piercing handgun
ammunition in the commission of a crime of violence or drug trafficking; and (2)
require the Attorney General to submit a report (within two years of enactment) on
49 119 Stat. 2095, October 26, 2005.
50 In the 108th Congress, the House passed a similar “gun industry liability” bill (H.R. 1036).
The Senate considered a similar bill (S. 1805) as well and amended it with several gun
control provisions, but this bill did not pass.
51 For further information, see CRS Report RS22074, Limiting Tort Liability of Gun
Manufacturers and Gun Sellers: Legal Analysis of 109th Congress Legislation, by Henry
Cohen.
52 In addition, 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.

---

CRS-15
“armor-piercing” ammunition based on certain performance characteristics, including
barrel length and amount of propellent (gun powder).
Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. In the Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 109-295), Congress included
a provision (§557) that amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §5207).53 This enacted provision prohibits federal
officials from seizing or authorizing the seizure of any firearm from private persons
during a major disaster or emergency, if possession of that firearm was not already
prohibited under federal or state law. It also forbids the same officials from
prohibiting the possession of any firearm that is not otherwise prohibited. And, the
law bans any prohibition on carrying firearms by persons who are otherwise
permitted to legally carry such firearms, because those persons are working under a
federal agency, or the control of an agency, providing disaster or emergency relief.
Section 557 of P.L. 109-295 is very similar to bills (H.R. 5013/S. 2599) that
were introduced by Representative Bobby Jindal and Senator David Vitter. Those
bills addressed firearms seizures that occurred in New Orleans after Hurricane
Katrina.54 On July 13, 2006, the Senate passed a related amendment, offered by
Senator David Vitter, to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill
(H.R. 5441) by a recorded vote of 68-32 (Record Vote Number: 191), and the Senate
passed that bill on the same day. On July 25, 2006, the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure ordered reported H.R. 5013 (H.Rept. 109-596), and
the House passed that bill on the same day by a recorded vote of 322-99 (Roll no.
401). While H.R. 5013 received no further action, the language of the Vitter
amendment was included in P.L. 109-295, as described above.55
House Judiciary Committee Considered Gun Bills
The House Judiciary Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee
approved four firearms-related bills, which were subsequently considered by the full
committee. Two of those bills were ordered reported. One was passed by the House.
ATFE Modernization and Reform Act of 2006. H.R. 5092 was
introduced by Representative Howard Coble, chair of the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and Representative
Robert Scott, the subcommittee’s ranking Minority Member, on April 5, 2006.
Among other things, this bill would have amended Gun Control Act provisions
governing the suspension and revocation of federal licenses for firearms dealers,
53 120 Stat. 1391, October 4, 2006.
54 Regarding those seizures, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and others maintained
that state “emergency powers” do not trump the Second Amendment right to keep and bear
arms. The NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation filed a joint lawsuit in federal
court seeking injunctive relief from those seizures. Pursuant to a court order, New Orleans
authorities were directed to cease seizing firearms from citizens, who had otherwise
committed no criminal violations, and to return already confiscated firearms. NRA v. Nagin,
Civil Decision No. 05-20,000 (E.D. La. September 23, 2005).
55 120 Stat. 1391, §557.

---

CRS-16
manufacturers, and importers, by establishing a graduated scale of fines and penalties
for administrative violations. For serious violations, however, revocation would have
remained an option. It would have also barred ATF from initiating administrative
enforcement actions for violations that are more than five years old, except for cases
involved the intentional obstruction of discovery of such violations by the licensee.
Proponents for this proposal argue that these provisions would allow federal
firearms licensees greater opportunity to address non-substantive recordkeeping
issues that under current law could have led to the revocation of their licenses.
Opponents argue that relaxing such provisions would weakened ATF authority and
efforts to reduce the number of “kitchen table top” dealers, who were not
substantively engaged in the business and, hence, ineligible for such licenses. H.R.
5092 was approved by the Crime subcommittee on May 3, 2006. The House
Judiciary Committee ordered this bill reported on September 7, and a written report
was filed on September 21 (H.Rept. 109-672). The House passed this bill on
September 26, 2006 by a recorded vote of 277-131 (Roll no. 476), but no further
action was taken on this bill.
ATF Operations at Richmond Area Gun Shows. H.R. 5092 included
provisions that would have required the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General to
conduct a study of ATF firearms enforcement operations at gun shows and would
have required the Attorney General to establish guidelines governing such future
operations. The House Judiciary Crime subcommittee held two oversight hearings
examining ATF firearms enforcement operations at guns shows in Richmond,
Virginia, in 2005.56 ATF agents reportedly provided state and local law enforcement
officers with confidential information from background check forms (ATF Form
4473s), so that those officers could perform residency checks on persons who had
otherwise legally purchased firearms at those gun shows. Questions were also raised
as to whether ATF agents had profiled gun purchasers at those gun shows on the
basis of race, ethnicity, and gender.
In addition, according to testimony heard from both gun show participants and
organizers, as well as ATF officials, firearms were seized from some of the gun
purchasers, and some of those seizures might have been illegal. ATF officials
conceded that those Richmond area gun show operations “were not implemented in
a manner consistent with ATF’s best practices,”57 and that guidance had subsequently
been provided to ATF field offices on such matters.
56 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Oversight Hearing on the “Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) Parts I & II: Gun Show Enforcement,”
February 15 and 28, 2006.
57 Testimony of ATF Assistant Director for Field Operations Michael R. Bouchard, U.S.
Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Oversight Hearing on the “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) Part ll: Gun Show Enforcement,” 109th Cong., 2nd sess.,
February 28, 2006.

---

CRS-17
Firearms Corrections and Improvements Act. H.R. 5005 was
introduced by Representative Lamar Smith on March 16, 2006. It was the topic of
a hearing held by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security on March 28, 2006. This bill was approved by the subcommittee
on May 18, 2006. The House Judiciary Committee began considering this bill on
September 7 and ordered it reported on September 13, 2006. However, a written
report was never filed, and no further action was taken on this bill. It is notable that
H.R. 5005 included several provisions related to firearms trace data and multiple
handgun sales reports that are opposed by mayors in several major cities.58

Codification of Firearms Trace Data Limitations.59 Of the provisions
in H.R. 5005, Section 9 was the most controversial. It would have codified
limitations on the disclosure of firearms trace data and multiple handgun sales reports
for any purpose other than a bona fide criminal investigation. Similar limitations
were included in the ATF appropriations language since FY2004.60 Proponents for
Section 9 contend that the business records of federal firearms licensees should be
confidential. They argue that access to these records is only authorized under federal
law for the purposes of conducting ATF trace requests in order to solve crimes. They
argue further that it was never intended that firearm trace data should be used to
support civil, public nuisance lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and dealers,
such as a lawsuit pursued by New York City.61
Opponents of Section 9, like Mayor Michael Bloomberg, counter that every tool
is needed to “crackdown” on irresponsible gun dealers by analyzing firearm trace
data on a regional and national basis, so that federal, state, and local law enforcement
authorities can be informed of the source and market areas for “crime guns.”62 They
contend further that Section 9, if enacted, would have precluded such analysis.
Senator Robert Menendez and Representative Steven R. Rothman introduced
identical bills (S. 2460/H.R. 5033) to repeal the FY2006 appropriations limitation on
ATF sharing firearms trace data and multiple handgun sales reports. Senator Charles
Schumer introduced a similar bill (S. 2629) and has reintroduced that bill (S. 77) in
the 110th Congress.
Multiple Handgun Sales Report Restrictions. Regarding multiple
handgun sales, section 7 of H.R. 5005 would have eliminated a provision that
58 Sewell Chan, “15 Mayors Meet in New York to Fight Against Gun Violence,” New York
Times, April 26, 2006, p. A18.
59 For further information, see CRS Report RS22458, Gun Control: Statutory Disclosure
Limitations on ATF Firearms Trace Data and Multiple Handgun Sales Reports, by William
J. Krouse.
60 For FY2004, the limitation on the use of ATF firearm trace data was inserted into the ATF
appropriations language by an amendment offered by Representative Todd Tiahrt in full-
committee markup.
61 For further information, see City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A., No. 00-CV-3641, 2006
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24452 (E.D.N.Y. April 27, 2006).
62 Sewell Chan, “15 Mayors Meet in New York to Fight Against Gun Violence,” New York
Times, April 26, 2006, p. A18.

---

CRS-18
provides for the transfer of multiple handgun sale reports made by gun dealers to the
Attorney General to state and local law enforcement authorities. Proponents argue
that state and local authorities have mishandled such confidential records and often
ignore certain certification requirements set out in the Gun Control Act. Opponents
counter that those reports often lead to illegal gun traffickers and without them vital
leads would go undiscovered.
Gun Dealer Out-of-Business Records. Section 8 of H.R. 5005 would
have prohibited the Attorney General from electronically retrieving the records of
gun dealers who had gone out of business by name or any personal identification. It
is notable that “out-of-business” records have been converted from paper to a digital
format at the ATF National Tracing Center. Proponents argue that such a
prohibition would protect the privacy of former federal firearms licensees, and that
the prohibition would not extend to searches of those records by firearms serial
number. Opponents counter that, if available, those records should be analyzed
further to uncover wider patterns of gun trafficking and other illegal activities.
Importation of Machinegun Parts Kits and Other Matters. Section 3
of H.R. 5005 would have lifted restrictions on the possession, transfer, and
importation of machineguns, and certain other shotguns and rifles, for contractors
providing national security services to the United States government and training
related to such services, and for manufacturers for test, research, design, and
development purposes. Section 10 would have relaxed importation restrictions on
barrels, frames, and receivers for firearms other than handguns for repair and
replacement parts. Those proposals are generally supported by Class III gun dealers
who are licensed under the National Firearms Act of 1938 to deal in machineguns
and other destructive devices, which are more tightly regulated under federal law than
other firearms.
Codification of Brady Background Check Fee Prohibition. Finally,
section 5 of H.R. 5005 would have codified a limitation in the DOJ appropriations
acts for the past eight years (FY1999 through FY2006) that prohibits the Attorney
General from charging any tax or fee for any background check made for the
purposes of determining firearms possession/transfer eligibility (see discussion below
on Brady Background Checks and Record Retention).
Firearm Commerce Modernization Act. H.R. 1384 was introduced by
Representative Phil Gingrey on March 17, 2005. This bill would have amended the
Gun Control Act to allow federal firearms licensees to transfer any firearm to out-of-
state residents as long as those transfers complied with the laws of both states, that
is, the laws of the state in which the licensee’s business was located and the laws of
the state in which the licensee’s customer resided. Under current law, licensees are
only permitted to transfer long guns to out-of-state residents, as long as such transfers
are made in person (face-to-face). H.R. 1384 would have allowed federal firearms
licensees to transfer handguns to out-of-state residents as well.
In addition, H.R. 1384 would have allowed federal firearms licensees to transfer
any firearm to other federal firearms licensees at out-of-state gun shows or similar
events as long as those transfers complied with the laws of both states. Under current
law, federal firearms licensees are permitted to display and take orders for firearms

---

CRS-19
at out-of-state gun shows, but they must return to their business locations to initiate
the subsequent transfers of those firearms.
Proponents argue that this proposal would eliminate federal requirements on
shipping such firearms interstate and reduced the risk that such firearms would be
stolen during shipment. Opponents counter that relaxation existing federal
requirements regarding the interstate transfer of handguns could possibly necessitate
dual-state background checks. In addition, in the view of the proposals’s opponents,
the relaxation of these requirements could be exploited by illegal firearms traffickers.
H.R. 1384 was approved in subcommittee markup on May 18, 2006, but no further
action was taken on this bill.
NICS Improvement Act of 2005. H.R. 1415 was introduced by
Representative Carolyn McCarthy and co-sponsored by Representative John Dingell.
Among other things, this proposal would have (1) amended the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act to require federal agencies to provide, and the Attorney
General to secure, any government records with information relevant to determining
the eligibility of a person to receive a firearm for inclusion in NICS; (2) required
states to make available to the Attorney General certain records that would disqualify
persons from acquiring a firearm, particularly those records that relate to convictions
for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence and persons adjudicated as mentally
defective; and (3) authorized appropriations for grant programs to assist states,
courts, and local governments in establishing or improving such automated record
systems. H.R. 1415 was approved in subcommittee markup on May 18, 2006, but
no further action was taken on this bill.63 Representative McCarthy has reintroduced
this bill (H.R. 297) in the 110th Congress.
Gun Provisions Attached to Funding and Crime Bills
Gun control-related provisions were either included in, or amended to,
appropriations and crime legislation in the 109th Congress.
District of Columbia Handgun Ban. During consideration of the FY2006
District of Columbia (DC) appropriations bill (H.R. 3058), the House passed an
amendment offered by Representative Mark Souder that would have prohibited the
use of funding provided under the bill to enforce a provision of the DC code that
requires residents to keep their firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a
trigger lock.64 Citing ongoing efforts to reduce firearms-related violence in the
District, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, former Mayor Anthony Williams,
and former Police Chief Charles Ramsey opposed this funding limitation in the
House-passed DC appropriations, as well as bills to overturn the “DC Handgun
63 During the 107th Congress, the House passed a similar bill entitled “Our Lady of Peace
Act” (H.R. 4757), but no further action was taken on it, before that Congress adjourned. In
the 108th Congress, Senator Daschle introduced the Justice Enhancement and Domestic
Security Act of 2003 (S. 22), which included the Our Lady of Peace Act (Title V, Subtitle
B), and Senator Charles Schumer introduced a similar bill (S. 1706). Neither bill was acted
upon, however, in the 108th Congress.
64 Sec. 702 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.02, D.C. Code).

---

CRS-20
Ban.”65 Although there was support in the Senate for including a similar provision
in the DC appropriations bill,66 such a provision was not included in the conference
version of H.R. 3058.67
Previously, in the 108th Congress, the House passed a bill (H.R. 3193)
introduced by Representative Souder that would have repealed the “DC handgun
ban” and other limitations on firearms possession. A similar measure was introduced
in the Senate (S. 1414). The handgun ban was passed by the DC Council on June 26,
1976. It requires that all firearms within the District be registered, all owners be
licensed, and prohibited the registration of handguns after September 24, 1976
(hence, the “DC handgun ban”). Under the Home Rule Act (P.L. 93-198), however,
Congress reserved for itself the authority to legislate for the District. As passed by
the House, H.R. 3193 would have amended the DC Code to
! limit the Council’s authority to regulate firearms;
! remove the term “semiautomatic weapon,” defined as a firearm that
can fire more than 12 rounds without manually reloading, from the
definition of “machine gun”;
! amend the registration requirements so that they do not apply to
handguns, but only to sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and short-
barreled rifles;
! remove restrictions on ammunition possession;
! repeal requirements that DC residents keep firearms in their
possession unloaded and disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock;
! repeal firearm registration requirements generally; and
! repeal certain criminal penalties for possessing unregistered firearms
or carrying unlicensed handguns.
In the 109th Congress, Representative Souder reintroduced a bill “to restore Second
Amendment rights in the District of Columbia” (H.R. 1288). Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison introduced a similar measure (S. 1082). As an aside, a federal appeals
court ruled on March 9, 2007, that provisions in the DC gun ban that prohibited
persons from keeping handguns in their home was unconstitutional.68 The District
of Columbia government is appealing this decision. In the 110th Congress,
meanwhile, Representative Mike Ross and Senator Hutchinson have reintroduced the
District of Columbia Personal Protection Act (H.R. 1399/S. 1001). Also, on March
22, 2007, Representative Lamar Smith successfully scuttled the District of Columbia
65 Spencer S. Hsu, “House Votes to Repeal District Gun Restriction,” Washington Post, July
1, 2005, p. B01.
66 Daphne Retter, “District of Columbia Appropriations: Key Senator Backs Limits on D.C.
Gun Laws That Were Included in House Measure,” Congressional Quarterly Today, June
21, 2005.
67 Robert E. Pierre, “Budget Leaves D.C. Gun Ban in Place,” Washington Post, November
19, 2005, p. B03.
68 See Parker v. District of Columbia (No. 04 — 7041, 478 F.3d 370; 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
5519); and David Nakamura and Robert Barnes, “DC’s Ban on Handguns in Homes is
Thrown Out,” Washington Post, March 10, 2007, p. A01.

---

CRS-21
House Voting Rights Act of 2007 (H.R. 1433), when he offered a motion to
recommit the bill to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for
consideration of an amendment to repeal portions of the DC handgun ban.69 Rather
than vote on the motion, debate on H.R. 1433 was postponed indefinitely.
Sex Offenders and Firearm Possession Eligibility. The House-passed
Children’s Safety Act of 2005 (H.R. 3132) was amended to include a provision that
would have prohibited the transfer or possession of a firearm to or by a person
convicted of a sex offense against a minor on September 14, 2005. This amendment
was offered by Representative Jerrold Nadler. H.R. 3132 was passed by the House
on the same date, but no further action was taken on this bill. During consideration
of H.R. 5005, however, the House Judiciary Committee amended that bill with
language of the Nadler amendment.
Arming Judicial Officials and Attorneys, and LEOSA Amendments.
The House-passed Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005 (H.R.
1751) was amended on November 9, 2005 by Representative Steve King to include
a provision that would have authorized any federal judge, magistrate, U.S. Attorney,
or any DOJ officer who represents the United States in a court of law to carry
firearms for self defense. Similar provisions were included in the House-passed
Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 4472), but they were not included
in the Senate-passed version of this bill, which was subsequently passed in the House
and signed into law by the President (P.L. 109-248). Representative Phil English
introduced a similar bill (H.R. 4477) as well.
The Senate, in turn, amended H.R. 1751 with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, and passed that bill on December 6, 2006. The Senate-passed version
included similar provisions regarding firearms and federal judicial officials, as well
as amendments to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA, P.L. 108-277)
that would have clarified and expanded this law, which gives concealed carry
privileges to qualified on-duty and retired law enforcement officers. Other House-
passed provisions, however, related to mandatory minimum sentences and the death
penalty were not included in the Senate bill, and no further action was taken on H.R.
1751.
In the 110th Congress, meanwhile, similar provisions that would authorize
certain federal judicial officials to carry firearms for self defense were not included
in the Senate-passed court security bill (S. 378). Regarding LEOSA, Senator Patrick
Leahy has included amendments to this act in a stand-alone provision (S. 376).
ATF Appropriations and Authorizations. The ATF is the lead federal law
enforcement agency charged with enforcing federal alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and
explosives statutes, as well as arson statutes where there is a federal nexus. For
FY2005, Congress appropriated $882 million for ATF (P.L. 108-447, P.L. 109-13).
69 Jonathan Allen, “Gun-Rights Gambit Sidetracks D.C. House Vote,” CQ Today, March 22,
2007; and for further information on H.R. 1433, see CRS Report RL33830, District of
Columbia Voting Representation in Congress: An Analysis of Legislative Proposals, by
Eugene Boyd.

---

CRS-22
According to DOJ, this amount funded 5,073 positions, including 2,446 agents and
785 industry operations investigators and industry operations specialists, as well as
1,842 other positions. For FY2006, Congress appropriated nearly $936 million for
ATF. This amount reflects certain department- and government-wide rescissions in
P.L. 109-108 and P.L. 109-148, as well as supplemental appropriations. This amount
funded 5,128 positions, including 2,509 agents and 797 industry operations
investigators and industry operations specialists, as well as 1,822 other positions.
For FY2007, the Administration requested $860 million for ATF; Congress
provided $984 million in the FY2007 Continuing Resolution. This amount is
anticipated to fund 5,148 positions, including 2,502 agents, 797 industry operations
investigators and specialists, as well as 1,849 other positions. Congress is also
considering FY2007 supplemental appropriations for ATF. Both the House- and
Senate-passed U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health, and Iraq Accountability Act,
2007 (H.R. 1591) would provide ATF with an additional $4 million for FY2007.
The House- and Senate-passed conference report (H.Rept. 110-107) would provide
the same amount, but President George W. Bush has indicated that he will veto this
bill for reasons unrelated to ATF funding and gun control. For FY2008, the
Administration’s request includes $1.014 billion and 5,032 positions for ATF (a net
reduction of 116 positions, as compared to FY2007).

Proposed Explosives User Fee. The Administration’s FY2007 request
was premised upon a legislative proposal that would have authorized an explosives
user fee for criminal background checks required under the Safe Explosives Act (P.L.
107-296). The Administration projected that this fee would have generated $120
million in off-setting receipts in FY2007 for ATF. The House-passed DOJ
appropriations bill (H.R. 5672; H.Rept. 109-520) would have provided $950 million.
The Senate-reported bill (H.R. 5672; S.Rept. 109-280) would have provided $985
million. The House bill included a provision that would have authorized an
explosives fee that was projected to generate $30 million in off-setting receipts. The
Senate bill did not include a similar provision. No final action was taken on H.R.
5672. And, no provision was included in the FY2007 Continuing Resolution for
such a fee. Furthermore, the Administration’s FY2008 request did not call for such
a fee.
ATF Authorizations for Appropriations. In the Violence Against Women
and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162), Congress
authorized to be appropriated for ATF the following amounts: $924 million for
FY2006, $961 million for FY2007, $999 million for FY2008, and $1.039 billion for
FY2009. Also, on May 11, 2005, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection
Act of 2005 (H.R. 1279) was amended with a provision offered by Representative
Diane Watson that would have authorized additional appropriations to hire 100
agents and 100 inspectors at ATF to be assigned to new “High-Intensity Gang
Activity Areas.” The House subsequently passed H.R. 1279, but no further action
was taken on this bill.
Tiahrt Amendment. Representative Todd Tiahrt offered an amendment that
placed several funding restrictions and conditions on ATF and the FBI during full
committee markup of the FY2004 DOJ appropriations bill (H.R. 2799). While

---

CRS-23
modified, those restrictions were included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2004 (P.L. 108-199). The Tiahrt language
! prohibits the use of any funding appropriated for ATF to disclose
firearm trace or multiple handgun sales report data for any purpose
other than supporting “bona fide” criminal investigation or agency
licensing proceeding;70
! prohibits the use of any funding appropriated for ATF to issue new
regulations that would require licensed dealers to conduct physical
inventories of their businesses; and
! requires the next-day destruction of approved Brady background
check records.
Congress has subsequently included the Tiahrt language in DOJ appropriations
measures for FY2005 and FY2006 (P.L. 108-447, P.L. 109-198). Under continuing
resolutions, those restrictions and conditions have been continued into FY2007.
Brady Background Check Fee and Record Retention. Beginning in
FY1999, Congress has prohibited the collection of any fee for firearms-related
background checks made through the FBI-administered NICS in DOJ appropriations.
Beginning in FY2004, that provision also included language (originally added by the
Tiahrt amendment) to require the next-day destruction of approved background check
records. The issue of approved Brady background check record retention has been
contentious since the inception of the FBI-administered NICS, because a provision
in the Brady Act (§103(i)) prohibits the establishment of any electronic registry of
firearms, firearm owners, or approved firearm transactions and dispositions.
Nevertheless, under Attorney General Janet Reno, DOJ proposed a rule that
would have allowed such records to be maintained for up to six months for audit
purposes on October 30, 1998.71 The NRA challenged this proposed rule in federal
court, arguing that retaining the approved records was tantamount to a temporary
registry. On July 11, 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia found that nothing in the Brady Act prohibited the temporary retention of
information about lawful firearm transfers for certain audit purposes.72 On January
22, 2001, DOJ promulgated a final rule that allowed such records to maintained for
up to 90 days.73 Attorney General John Ashcroft opposed this rule, however; and
DOJ proposed another rule that called for the next-day destruction of those files on
July 6, 2001.74
In July 2002, meanwhile, GAO reported that under Attorney General Reno the
FBI had conducted “nonroutine” searches of the NICS audit log for law enforcement
70 For further information, see CRS Report RS22458, Gun Control: Statutory Limitations
on ATF Firearms Trace Data and Multiple Handgun Sales Reports, by William J. Krouse.
71 63 Federal Register 58303.
72 NRA v. Reno (No. 99-5270, 216 F. 3d 122; 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 15906).
73 66 Federal Register 6470.
74 66 Federal Register 35567.

---

CRS-24
agencies to determine whether a person, whom subsequent information showed was
a prohibited person, had been transferred a firearm within the previous 90 days. The
FBI informed GAO that such searches were routinely conducted, but were a
“secondary benefit” given that the audit log was maintained primarily to check for
system “accuracy, privacy, and performance.” In addition, GAO reported that the
next-day destruction of records would “adversely affect” other NICS operations,
including firearm-retrieval actions, NICS audit log checks for previous background
checks, verifications of NICS determinations for federal firearms licensees, and ATF
inspections of federal firearms licensees’ record keeping.75
Despite those adverse affects, opponents of greater federal gun control viewed
the non-routine use of NICS records as beyond the scope of authority given the
Attorney General under the Brady Act. As described below, GAO reported that DOJ
took steps to minimize the adverse affects of the next-day destruction of those
records, but in the wake of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks additional issues regarding
Brady background checks emerged.
Other Salient Gun Control Legislative Issues
Brady Background Checks and Terrorist Watch Lists.76 Historically,
terrorist watch list checks were not part of the Brady background check process, since
being a suspected or known terrorist was and is not a disqualifying factor for firearm
transfer/possession eligibility under federal or state law. As is the case today, to
determine such eligibility, FBI-NICS examiners check three databases maintained by
the FBI. They include the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the Interstate
Identification Index (III), and the NICS index. The NICS index includes
disqualifying records on persons: (1) dishonorably discharged from the armed forces,
(2) adjudicated mentally defective, or (3) convicted of certain serious immigration
violations. The III includes criminal history records for persons arrested and
convicted of felonies and misdemeanors. The NCIC includes law enforcement hot
files on fugitives and persons subject to restraining orders, among other persons.
NCIC also includes a hot file known as the Violent Gang and Terrorist Offender File
(VGTOF). Prior to the 9/11 attacks, this file included limited information on known
or suspected terrorists and gang members. NICS examiners were not informed of
VGTOF hits, as such information was not considered relevant to determining
firearms transfer/possession eligibility.
Following the 9/11 attacks, FBI officials reportedly searched approved firearm
transaction records in the then NICS 90-day audit log for 186 illegal alien detainees.
Two were found to have been improperly cleared to be transferred firearms.77 Upon
learning of this practice, however, then Attorney General Ashcroft barred the FBI
75 For further information on these issues, see GAO, Gun Control: Potential Effects of Next-
Day Destruction of NICS Background Check Records, GAO-02-653, July 2002.
76 For further information, see CRS Report RL33011, Terrorist Screening and Brady
Background Checks for Firearms, by William J. Krouse.
77 Fox Butterfield, “Justice Dept. Bars Use of Gun Checks in Terror Inquiry: FBI Wants to
See Files,” New York Times, December 6, 2001, p. A1.

---

CRS-25
from searching the NICS audit log, maintaining that the Brady Act prohibited the use
of NICS as an electronic registry of firearms, dispositions, or owners.78 Advocates
of greater gun control opposed this shift in policy, arguing that law enforcement and
counterterrorism officials ought to have access to NICS records to further ongoing
terrorist and criminal investigations. As described above, however, gun rights
advocates successfully amended the FY2004 Justice appropriations to require the
destruction of those records within 24 hours. A similar requirement were enacted for
FY2005 and FY2006 as well. It was also been included in the House-passed and
Senate-reported versions of the FY2007 DOJ appropriations bill (H.R. 5672).
In February 2002, DOJ initiated a NICS transaction audit to determine whether
prohibited aliens (non-citizens) were being improperly transferred firearms. As part
of this audit, NICS procedures were changed, so that NICS examiners were informed
of VGTOF hits. Under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6, moreover, the
Administration initiated a broad-based review of the use of watchlists, among other
terrorist identification and screening mechanisms.79 In September 2003, the FBI-
administered Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) was established and work was begun
to improve and merge several watchlists maintained by U.S. government into a
consolidated Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB). One of these “watchlists” was
VGTOF. As part of those efforts, TSDB lookout records from other agency
watchlists were downloaded into VGTOF, growing that file from 10,000 to more
than 140,000 records. Effective February 2004, the FBI officially changed its NICS
operating procedures to inform NICS examiners of VGTOF hits for known and
suspected terrorists.80
Under the new procedures in non-Point of Contact (non-POC) states, NICS staff
validate terrorism-related VGTOF hits by contacting TSC staff. The latter have
greater access to identifiers in terrorist files, with which known and suspected
terrorists can be more positively identified. In full and partial POC states, the law
enforcement officials that conduct firearms-related background checks under the
Brady Act contact TSC staff directly. In the case of valid hits, NICS staff delay the
transactions for up to three business days and contact the FBI Counterterrorism
Division to allow field agents to check for prohibiting factors. If no prohibiting
factors are uncovered within this three-day period, NICS staff anonymize the
transaction record by deleting the subject’s identifying information. The firearms
dealers may proceed with the transaction at their discretion, but FBI counterterrorism
officials continue to work the case for up to 90 days. If they learn of a prohibiting
factor within that 90-day period, they are able to contact the NICS unit and de-
anonymize the transaction record by filling in the subject’s identifying fields. At the
end of 90 days, if no prohibiting factor has been found, all records related to the
NICS transaction are destroyed.
78 Subparagraph 103(i) of P.L. 103-159 (107 Stat. 1542).
79 For further information, see CRS Report RL32366, Terrorist Identification, Screening,
and Tracking Under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6, by William J. Krouse.
80 Dan Eggen, “FBI Gets More Time on Gun Buys,” Washington Post, November 22, 2003,
p. A05.

---

CRS-26
Senators Joseph Biden and Frank Lautenberg requested that GAO report on
these new NICS operating procedures.81 In January 2005, GAO reported that in a
five-month period — February 3, 2004 through June 30, 2004 — NICS checks
resulted in an estimated 650 terrorist-related record hits in VGTOF. Of these, 44
were found to be valid. As noted above, however, being identified as a known or
suspected terrorist is not grounds to prohibit a person from being transferred a
firearm under current law. As a consequence, 35 of these transactions were allowed
to proceed, six were denied, one was unresolved, and two were of an unknown
status.82 GAO recommended that the Attorney General should (1) clarify what
information generated by the Brady background check process could be shared with
counterterrorism officials; and (2) either more frequently monitor background checks
conducted by full and partial POC States that result in terrorism-related VGTOF hits,
or allow the FBI to handle such cases.83
Several related pieces of legislation were introduced that are related to NICS
operations and terrorist watchlists. The Terrorist Apprehension and Record
Retention Act of 2005 (S. 578/H.R. 1225), introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg
and Representative John Conyers, would have required that the FBI, along with
appropriate federal and state counterterrorism officials, be notified immediately when
the NICS indicated that a person seeking to obtain a firearm was a known or
suspected terrorist. Furthermore, the proposal would have (1) required that the FBI
coordinate the response to such occurrences, (2) authorized the retention of all related
records for at least 10 years, and (3) allowed federal and state officials access to such
records.
In addition, Representative Peter King introduced H.R. 1168, a bill that would
have required the Attorney General to promulgate regulations to preserve records of
terrorist- and gang-related record hits during such background checks until they were
provided to the FBI. Representative Carolyn McCarthy introduced H.R. 1195, a bill
that would have made it unlawful for anyone to transfer a firearm to a person who
was on the “No Fly” lists maintained by the Transportation Security Administration.84
In the 110th Congress, Representative McCarthy has reintroduced this measure (H.R.
1167). Also, Senator Frank Lautenberg has introduced a bill (S. 1237) that would
authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of
firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspect terrorists. The language of S.
1237 reportedly reflects a legislative proposal made by the Department of Justice.85
81 For further information, see GAO, Gun Control and Terrorism: FBI Could Better
Manage Firearm-Related Background Checks Involving Terrorist Watch List Records,
GAO-05-127, January 2005, 38 pp.
82 Ibid., p. 9.
83 Ibid., p. 26.
84 For further information about the “No Fly” lists, see CRS Report RL32802, Homeland
Security: Air Passenger Prescreening and Counterterrorism, by Bart Elias, William Krouse,
and Ed Rappaport.
85 Michael Luo, “U.S. Proposal Could Block Gun Buyers Tied to Terror,” New York Times,
April 27, 2007.

---

CRS-27

Long-Range Fifty Caliber Rifles.86 In the 109th Congress, legislation was
introduced to regulate more strictly certain fifty (.50) caliber rifles. Some of these
rifles are chambered to fire a relatively large round that was originally designed for
the Browning Machine Gun (BMG) and have been adopted by the U.S. military as
long-range “sniper” rifles. Gun control advocates argue that these firearms have little
sporting, hunting, or recreational purpose. They maintain that these rifles could be
used to shoot down aircraft, rupture pressurized chemical tanks, or penetrate armored
personnel carriers. Gun control opponents counter that these rifles are expensive,
cumbersome and rarely, if ever, used in crime. Furthermore, they maintain that these
rifles were first developed for long-range marksmanship competitions and, then
adopted by the military as sniper rifles.
The Fifty Caliber Sniper Weapons Regulation Act of 2005 (S. 935), introduced
by Senator Dianne Feinstein, would have amended the National Firearms Act
(NFA)87 to regulate “.50 caliber sniper weapons” in the same fashion as short-
barreled shotguns and silencers, by levying taxes on the manufacture and transfer of
such firearms and by requiring owner and firearm registration. The other proposal
introduced by Representative James Moran, the 50 Caliber Sniper Rifle Reduction
Act (H.R. 654), would have also amended the NFA to include those weapons but
would have also amended the Gun Control Act88 to effectively freeze the population
of those weapons legally available to private persons and to prohibit any further
transfer of those firearms. In other words, H.R. 654 would have grandfathered in
existing rifles but would have banned their further transfer. Consequently, the
proposal would have eventually eliminated those rifles all together from the civilian
gun stock. It would have been likely that covered .50 caliber rifles would have had
to be destroyed or handed over to the ATF as contraband when the legal firearm
owner died or wanted to give up the firearm. H.R. 654 included no compensation
provision for rifles destroyed or handed over to the federal government.
Furthermore, both proposals (S. 935 and H.R. 654) would have defined “.50
caliber sniper weapon” to mean “a rifle capable of firing center-fire cartridge in .50
caliber, .50 BMG caliber, any other variant of .50 caliber or any metric equivalent of
such calibers.” Many rifles, and even some handguns, are chambered to fire .50
caliber ammunition, meaning the projectile is about one-half inch in diameter.
Opponents of this legislation note that this definition was very broad and would have
likely covered .50 caliber rifles that would not be considered “long-range” or “sniper”
rifles. The .50 BMG caliber round, on the other hand, is an exceptionally large
cartridge (projectile and casing), which was once used almost exclusively as a heavy
machine gun round. Representative Moran also offered an amendment to the
FY2006 Department of Commerce appropriations bill (H.R. 2862) that would have
prohibited the use of funding provided under that bill to process licenses to export
.50 caliber rifles, but that amendment was not adopted by the House.
86 For further information, see CRS Report RS22151, Long-Range Fifty Caliber Rifles:
Should They Be More Strictly Regulated?, by William J. Krouse.
87 26 USC, Chapter 53, §5801 et seq.
88 18 USC, Chapter 44, §921 et seq.

---

CRS-28
Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban. In 1994, Congress banned for 10
years the possession, transfer, or further domestic manufacture of semiautomatic
assault weapons (SAWs) and large capacity ammunition feeding devices (LCAFDs)
that hold greater than 10 rounds that were not legally owned or available prior to the
date of enactment (September 13, 1994). The SAW-LCAFD ban expired on
September 13, 2004. Assault rifles were originally developed to provide a lighter
infantry weapon that could fire more rounds, more rapidly (increased capacity and
rate of fire). To increase capacity of fire, detachable, self-feeding magazines were
developed. These rifles were usually designed to be fired in fully automatic mode,
meaning that once the trigger is pulled, the weapon continues to fire rapidly until all
the rounds in the magazine are expended, or the trigger is released. Often these rifles
were also designed with a “select fire” feature that allowed them to be fired in short
bursts (e.g., three rounds per pull of the trigger), or in semiautomatic mode (i.e., one
round per pull of the trigger), as well as in fully automatic mode. Semiautomatic
firearms by comparison, including semiautomatic assault weapons, fire one round per
pull of the trigger.
Under current law, any firearm, including “assault weapons,” that can be fired
in fully automatic mode or in multi-round bursts are classified as “machine guns,”
and must be registered with the federal government under the National Firearms Act
of 1934. Furthermore, it is illegal to assemble a machine gun with legally or illegally
obtained parts. The population of legally owned machine guns has been frozen since
1986, and they were not covered by the semiautomatic assault weapons ban.
According to a 1997 survey of 203,300 state and federal prisoners, who had been
armed during the commission of the crimes for which they were incarcerated, fewer
than one in 50, or less than 2%, used, carried, or possessed a fully automatic or
semiautomatic assault weapon.89
Statute classified a rifle as a semiautomatic assault weapon, if it was able to
accept a detachable magazine, and included two or more of the following five
characteristics: (1) a folding or telescoping stock; (2) a pistol grip; (3) a bayonet
mount; (4) a muzzle flash suppressor or threaded barrel capable of accepting such a
suppressor; or (5) a grenade launcher. There were similar definitions for pistols and
shotguns that were classified as semiautomatic assault weapons.90 Semiautomatic
assault weapons that were legally owned prior to the ban were not restricted and
remained available for transfer under applicable federal and state laws.
Opponents of the ban argue that the statutorily defined characteristics of a
semiautomatic assault weapon were largely cosmetic, and that these weapons were
potentially no more lethal than other semiautomatic firearms that were designed to
accept a detachable magazine and were equal or superior in terms of ballistics and
other performance characteristics. Proponents of the ban argue that semiautomatic
military-style firearms — particularly those capable of accepting large capacity
ammunition feeding devices — had and have no place in the civilian gun stock.
89 For further information, see Firearm Use by Offenders, by Caroline Wolf Harlow, at
[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf].
90 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(30).

---

CRS-29
In the 108th Congress, proposals were introduced to extend or make permanent
the ban, while other proposals were made to modified the definition of
“semiautomatic assault weapon” to cover a greater number of firearms by reducing
the number of features that would constitute such firearms, and expand the list of
certain makes and models of firearms that are statutorily enumerated as banned. A
proposal (S. 1034) introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein would have made the ban
permanent, as would have a proposal (H.R. 2038/S. 1431) introduced by
Representative Carolyn McCarthy and Senator Frank Lautenberg. The latter
measure, however, would have modified the definition and expanded the list of
banned weapons. Senator Feinstein also introduced measures that would have
extended the ban for 10 years (S. 2109/S. 2498). In addition, on March 2, 2004, the
Senate passed an amendment to the gun industry liability bill (S. 1805) that would
have extended the ban for 10 years, but the Senate did not pass this bill.91 In the 109th
Congress, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill that would have reinstated
previous law for 10 years (S. 620). Representative McCarthy and Senator Lautenberg
reintroduced their bills to make the ban permanent (H.R. 1312/S. 645).
In the 110th Congress, Representative McCarthy has reintroduced a similar
proposal (H.R. 1022) and another measure (H.R. 1859) that would prohibit the
transfer of a semiautomatic assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding
device, among other things.
Gun Shows and Private Firearm Transfers. Federal law does not
regulate gun shows specifically. Federal law regulating firearm transfers, however,
is applicable to such transfers at gun shows. Federal firearms 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
firearms 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, they ask, should licensees be
required to conduct background 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). On the other hand, those seeking to
increase federal regulation of firearms may view the absence of background checks
for firearm transfers between nonlicensed/private persons as a “loophole” in the law
that needs to be closed. A possible issue for Congress is whether federal regulation
of firearms should be expanded to include private firearm transfers at gun shows and
other similar venues.
Among gun show-related proposals, there are two basic models. The first model
is based on a bill (S. 443) that was introduced in the 106th Congress by Senator
Lautenberg, who successfully offered this proposal as an amendment to the Senate-
passed Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act (S. 254). Several members
91 For further information, see CRS Report RL32077, The Assault Weapons Ban: Legal
Challenges and Legislative Issues, by T.J. Halstead, and CRS Report RL32585,
Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban, by William J. Krouse.

---

CRS-30
introduced variations of the Lautenberg bill in the 107th Congress. In the 108th
Congress, Representative Conyers — ranking minority member of the Judiciary
Committee — introduced H.R. 260, which was very similar to the Lautenberg bill.
In addition, former Senator Daschle introduced the Justice Enhancement and
Domestic Security Act of 2003 (S. 22), which included gun show language that was
similar to the Lautenberg bill.
The second model is based on a bill (S. 890) introduced in the 107th Congress
by Senators McCain and Lieberman. In the 108th Congress, Senators McCain and
Reed introduced a bill (S. 1807), which was similar to S. 890. In the 108th Congress,
on March 2, 2004, the Senate passed an amendment offered by Senator McCain to
the gun industry liability bill (S. 1805) that would have required background checks
for private firearm transfers at gun shows, but the Senate did not pass this bill.92 In
the 109th and 110th Congresses, Representative Michael Castle reintroduced this bill
as the Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2005 (H.R. 3540 and H.R. 96).
92 For further information, see CRS Report RL32249, Gun Control: Proposals to Regulate
Gun Shows, by William J. Krouse and T.J. Halstead.

---

CRS-31
Appendix.
Major Federal Firearm and Related Statutes
The following principal changes have been enacted to the Gun Control Act
since 1968.
! 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-a-likes 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, amended by
P.L. 108-174, 2003), 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 firearms licensees.
! The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L.
103-322) prohibited the manufacture or importation of
semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition
feeding devices for 10 years. The 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

---

CRS-32
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 increased penalties for the criminal use of firearms. The
assault weapons ban expired on September 13, 2004.
! Federal Domestic Violence Gun Ban (the Lautenberg Amendment,
in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY1997, P.L.
104-208) prohibits persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of
domestic violence from possessing firearms and ammunition. The
ban applies regardless of when the offense was adjudicated: prior to,
or following enactment. It has been challenged in the federal courts,
but these challenges have been defeated.93
! The Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Appropriations Act,
1999 (P.L. 105-277), requires all federal firearms licensees to offer
for sale gun storage and safety devices. It also bans firearm transfers
to, or possession by, most nonimmigrants, and those nonimmigrants
who have overstayed 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.
! The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) establishes a
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives by
transferring the law enforcement functions, but not the revenue
functions, of the former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice.
! Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-277)
provides that qualified active and retired law enforcement officers
may carry a concealed firearm. This act supersedes state level
prohibitions on concealed carry that would otherwise apply to law
enforcement officers, but it does not override any federal laws. Nor
does the act supersede or limit state laws that permit private persons
or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms
on their property or prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on
any state or local government property, installation, building, base,
or park.
93 See CRS Report RL31143, Firearms Prohibitions and Domestic Violence Convictions:
The Lautenberg Amendment, by T.J. Halstead.

---