Gun Control Legislation
William J. Krouse
Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy
June 9, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32842
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

Gun Control Legislation

Summary
Congress has debated the efficacy and constitutionality of federal regulation of firearms and
ammunition, with strong advocates arguing for and against greater gun control. The tragic
shootings in Tucson, AZ, on January 8, 2011, in which six people were killed and 13 wounded,
including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, could prompt the 112th Congress to examine issues
related to the shooter’s mental illness and drug use (see S. 436) and his use of large capacity
ammunition feeding devices (LCAFDs) (see H.R. 308 and S. 32), as well as a proposal to ban
firearms within the proximity of certain high-level federal officials (see H.R. 367 and H.R. 496).
Other emerging issues include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’s (ATF)
proposal to require multiple rifle sales reports from Southwest border state gun dealers and its
conduct of Operation Fast and Furious. More recently, gun-related amendments to bills
reauthorizing USA PATRIOT Act provisions were considered (H.R. 1800, S. 1038, and S. 990),
but were not included in the enacted legislation (P.L. 112-14). To set these and other emerging
issues in context, this report provides basic firearms-related statistics, an overview of federal
firearms law, and a summary of legislative action in the 111th Congress.
During the 111th Congress, the gun control debate was colored by two key Supreme Court
findings. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court found that the District of Columbia (DC)
handgun ban, among other regulations, violated an individual’s right under the Second
Amendment to lawfully possess a firearm in his home for self-defense. In McDonald v. City of
Chicago
, the Court found that the Second Amendment also applied to the states. Congress
considered amendments to DC voting rights bills that would have further overturned DC gun laws
(S. 160 and H.R. 157), effectively scuttling the House bill. In addition, some Members passed
several other gun-related provisions included in enacted legislation that address
• carrying firearms on public lands (P.L. 111-24),
• transporting firearms in passenger luggage on Amtrak (P.L. 111-117),
• widening law enforcement off-duty concealed carry privileges (P.L. 111-272),
and
• prohibiting higher health care premiums for gun owners (P.L. 111-148).
The 111th Congress reconsidered or newly considered several other provisions that were not
enacted. These issues could re-emerge in the 112th Congress. These provisions address
• gun rights restoration for veterans previously deemed to be mentally incompetent
(S. 669 and H.R. 6132),
• firearms possession in public housing (H.R. 3045 and H.R. 4868),
• interstate reciprocity of concealed carry privileges (S. 1390 and S. 845), and
• the treatment of firearms under bankruptcy proceedings (H.R. 5827/S. 3654).
The report concludes with discussion of other salient and recurring gun control issues that have
generated past congressional interest. Those issues include (1) screening firearms background
check applicants against terrorist watch lists; (2) reforming the regulation of federally licensed
gun dealers; (3) requiring background checks for private firearms transfers at gun shows; (4)
more-strictly regulating certain firearms previously defined in statute as “semiautomatic assault
weapons”; and (5) banning or requiring the registration of certain long-range .50 caliber rifles,
which are commonly referred to as “sniper” rifles.
Congressional Research Service

Gun Control Legislation

Contents
Recent Developments.................................................................................................................. 1
Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress .................................................................. 1
Background and Analysis ............................................................................................................ 3
Pro/Con Debate..................................................................................................................... 3
Gun-Related Statistics ........................................................................................................... 4
How Many Guns Are in the United States?...................................................................... 4
How Often Are Guns Used in Homicides?....................................................................... 5
How Prevalent Are Gun-Related Fatalities?..................................................................... 6
How Often Are Guns Used in Non-lethal Crimes? ........................................................... 8
How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?.............................................................. 8
What About the Recreational Use of Guns? ..................................................................... 9
Federal Regulation of Firearms ................................................................................................... 9
The National Firearms Act (NFA) ....................................................................................... 10
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) .................................................................................. 10
Firearms Transfer and Possession Eligibility ................................................................. 10
Licensed Dealers and Firearms Transfers....................................................................... 11
Private Firearms Transfers............................................................................................. 11
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act............................................................................. 12
Interim Provisions......................................................................................................... 12
Permanent Provisions.................................................................................................... 12
National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) .......................................... 16
NICS Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP)........................................................ 18
Background Check Fee and Record Retention ............................................................... 20
Emerging Issues in the 112th Congress....................................................................................... 21
Tucson Shootings................................................................................................................ 22
Mental Illness and Drug Use as Prohibiting Factors....................................................... 22
Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices ............................................................... 23
Banning Firearms within the Proximity of Federal Officials .......................................... 24
ATF Southwest Border Gun Trafficking Investigations ........................................................ 24
Multiple Rifles Sales Report Proposal ........................................................................... 24
Operation Fast and Furious ........................................................................................... 27
ATF FY2011 Appropriation and FY2012 Budget Request ................................................... 29
FISA Sunset Extensions and Firearms-Related Amendments ............................................... 30
Legislative Action in the 111th and 110th Congresses .................................................................. 30
Constitutionality of DC Handgun Ban and Related Legislation............................................ 30
DC Council Passes Emergency Law.............................................................................. 31
Legislation Related to DC Gun Laws ............................................................................ 31
DC Council Passes Permanent Legislation .................................................................... 32
DC Voting Rights and Gun Laws in the 111th Congress.................................................. 33
Constitutionality of the Chicago Handgun Ban .................................................................... 33
Public Lands and Firearms Possession and Use ................................................................... 34
Amtrak Passengers and Firearms......................................................................................... 35
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Amendments ............................................................ 35
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Firearms..................................................... 36
NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007..................................................................... 37
Congressional Research Service

Gun Control Legislation

Veterans, Mental Incompetency, and Firearms Eligibility..................................................... 38
Mental Defective Adjudications .................................................................................... 39
VA Referrals to the FBI ................................................................................................. 39
Public Housing and Firearms Possession and Use................................................................ 40
Concealed Carry and Reciprocity ........................................................................................ 41
Bankruptcy and Firearms .................................................................................................... 42
ATF Appropriations and Southwest Border Gun Trafficking ................................................ 42
ATF Appropriations for FY2011.................................................................................... 42
ATF Appropriations for FY2010.................................................................................... 43
Southwest Border Gun Trafficking ................................................................................ 43
Tiahrt Amendment and Firearms Trace Data Limitations ..................................................... 44
Other Salient Gun Control Legislative Issues............................................................................. 45
Brady Background and Terrorist Watch List Checks ............................................................ 45
Post-9/11 Modified NICS Procedures ............................................................................ 46
Possible Issues for Congress and Related Legislative Proposals..................................... 47
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Hearing .................... 49
ATF Modernization Act....................................................................................................... 50
Gun Shows and Private Firearms Transfers ......................................................................... 50
Expired Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban ..................................................................... 51
Long-Range .50 Caliber Rifles ............................................................................................ 53

Figures
Figure 1. ATF Appropriations, FY2012 Request ....................................................................... 29

Tables
Table 1. Firearms-Related Murder Victims, 1993-2009................................................................ 5
Table 2. Firearms-Related Deaths for All Ages ............................................................................ 6
Table 3. Firearms-Related Deaths for Juveniles ........................................................................... 7
Table 4. Brady Background Checks for Firearms Transfers and Permits..................................... 15
Table 5. Estimated Brady Background Check Denials ............................................................... 16
Table 6. NCHIP Appropriations, FY1995 though FY2011 ......................................................... 17
Table 7. NICS Improvement Authorizations and Appropriations under P.L. 110-180.................. 18

Appendixes
Appendix. Major Federal Firearms and Related Statutes............................................................ 55

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 57
Congressional Research Service

Gun Control Legislation

Recent Developments
The 112th Congress could possibly examine issues potentially arising from the tragic shootings in
Tucson, AZ, on January 8, 2011, in which six people were killed and 13 wounded, including
Representative Gabrielle Giffords. Armed with a 9mm Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol loaded with
a 33-round extended magazine, the shooter reportedly fired 31 shots before bystanders were able
to subdue him while he was attempting to reload with another 33-round extended magazine. He
also carried two additional 15-round magazines.1 As discussed below, these magazines were
previously defined under federal law as large capacity ammunition feeding devices (LCAFDs)
and were banned from September 13, 1994, through September 13, 2004, as part of the larger
semiautomatic assault weapons ban. Legislation has been introduced to reinstate the LCAFD ban
(H.R. 308 and S. 32). Congressional interest could also focus on the shooter’s mental illness and
drug use (S. 436), as well as a proposal to ban firearms within the proximity of certain high-level
federal officials (H.R. 367 and H.R. 496). Other emerging issues include the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) administrative proposal to require multiple rifle sales
reports from Southwest border state gun dealers; its conduct of Operation Fast and Furious, a
Phoenix, AZ-based gun trafficking investigation; and its FY2011 final appropriations ($1.113
billion). More recently, firearms-related issues have arisen with regard to proposed amendments
to legislation that would extend certain USA PATRIOT Act provisions related to national security
investigations (H.R. 1800, S. 1038, and S. 990), but these amendments were not included in the
enacted legislation (P.L. 112-14).
Overview of Legislative Action in the 111th Congress
During the 111th Congress, the gun control debate was colored by two key Supreme Court
decisions.2 In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court found that the District of Columbia (DC)
handgun ban, among other regulations, violated an individual’s right under the Second
Amendment to lawfully possess a firearm in his home for self-defense. In McDonald v. City of
Chicago
, the Court found that an individual’s right to lawfully possess a firearm for the purposes
of self-defense under the Second Amendment applied to the states by way of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Although the decision arguably limits a state’s, city’s, or local government’s ability
to prohibit handguns outright, it does not precisely delineate what would constitute permissible
gun control laws under the Second Amendment. Consequently, these delineations will likely be
developed in future cases.
In the 111th Congress, Members revisited several gun control issues that were previously
considered in the 110th Congress. For example, some Members in the House of Representatives,
who were dissatisfied with the District’s response to the Heller decision, passed a bill in the 110th
Congress that would have overturned provisions of the District’s revised gun laws. In the 111th
Congress, members of the Senate amended and passed a DC voting rights bill (S. 160) with
similar language.3 When the House turned its attention to DC voting rights, the leadership

1 David von Drehle, “1 Madman and a Gun: 15 Seconds to Fire the Glock; 31 Bullets in One Clip; 19 Victims, with Six
Killed,” Time, January 24, 2011, p. 26.
2 For a legal analysis, see CRS Report R41750, The Second Amendment: An Overview of District of Columbia v. Heller
and McDonald v. City of Chicago
, by Vivian S. Chu.
3 For further information, see CRS Report R40474, DC Gun Laws and Proposed Amendments, by Vivian S. Chu.
Congressional Research Service
1

Gun Control Legislation

attempted to negotiate a compromise but ultimately tabled its version of the DC voting rights bill
(H.R. 157) rather than risk amendments to overturn DC guns laws. The DC gun amendments
were introduced as stand-alone bills (H.R. 5162/S. 3265).
Members also sponsored several provisions that were enacted. Senator Tom Coburn successfully
amended the Credit CARD Act of 2009 (H.R. 627) with a provision that allows people to carry
firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The House voted on the Coburn amendment as a
separate measure and passed it as well (P.L. 111-24). Senator Roger Wicker amended the FY2010
Transportation-HUD Appropriations bill (H.R. 3288) with language to authorize private persons
to carry firearms in their checked luggage on Amtrak trains. H.R. 3288 became the vehicle for the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117), which included the Wicker provision.
Congress also reconsidered and passed amendments to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act
(LEOSA; P.L. 108-277) to clarify and widen eligibility for certain qualified police officers to
carry concealed firearms across state lines (S. 1132; P.L. 111-272).
Some Members sponsored several provisions that were considered or reconsidered but were not
enacted. In the 110th Congress, the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee approved a bill (S. 2969)
that Senator Richard Burr amended to include a provision that would have revamped procedures
by which veterans are adjudicated as “mentally incompetent” and, thus, lose their firearms
eligibility. In the 111th Congress, the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee reported stand-alone
legislation that would have addressed this issue (S. 669). The House Veterans’ Affairs Committee
considered a draft veterans’ benefits bill that Representative John Boozman amended with a
similar provision. However, when the House considered the reported bill (H.R. 6132) under
suspension of the rules, it was called to the floor without the Boozman provision.
In addition, the Senate considered an amendment offered by Senator John Thune to the FY2010
Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390) that was narrowly defeated and arguably would have
provided for national reciprocity between states regarding the concealed carry of firearms. The
House Financial Services Committee reported a bill (H.R. 3045; H.Rept. 111-277) that included a
provision that would have prohibited public housing authorities from barring tenants from
possessing legal firearms as a condition of their lease. This committee approved another housing
bill that included a similar provision (H.R. 4868). And the House passed amendments (H.R.
5827) to federal bankruptcy law that would have allowed persons to claim either a single firearm
or a collection of firearms of up to $3,000 in value as a federal exemption.
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held a hearing on
denying firearms to persons watch-listed as known or suspected terrorists (S. 1317/H.R. 2159 and
S. 2820). And, on at least two occasions, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary scheduled a
hearing on a bill to reform federal statutes under which federally licensed firearms dealers are
regulated (S. 941/H.R. 2296). Gun trafficking across the Southwest border from the United States
to Mexico has been an emerging concern for Congress.4 The Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2010 (P.L. 111-117), included increased funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives (ATF) to investigate additional gun trafficking cases.5 In addition, Congress
provided ATF with a FY2010 supplemental appropriation to combat further Southwest border gun

4 For further information, see CRS Report R40733, Gun Trafficking and the Southwest Border, by Vivian S. Chu and
William J. Krouse.
5 For further information, see CRS Report RL34514, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF):
Budget and Operations for FY2008, FY2009, and FY2010
, by William J. Krouse.
Congressional Research Service
2

Gun Control Legislation

trafficking (P.L. 111-230). Congress also altered, but continued to make permanent, a funding
limitation on the release of ATF firearms trace data.
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 firearms 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 is therefore restricted in scope by that
intent; and (3) does not guarantee a right that is absolute, but rather one that can be limited by
reasonable requirements. They ask why in today’s modern society a private citizen needs any
firearm that is not designed primarily for hunting or other recognized sporting purposes.
Proponents of firearms restrictions have advocated policy changes on specific types of firearms or
components that they believe 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 as of 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 to stop the sale and use of liquor during Prohibition. In their view, a
more-stringent federal firearms 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.
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
Congressional Research Service
3

Gun Control Legislation

continuing need of people for effective means to defend themselves and their 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 further believe 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
firearms 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, and 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, and moved by irrational
hostility toward 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.6 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) that those firearms were banned from further proliferation in the United States.7 Presented
below are data on the following topics: (1) the number of guns in the United States, (2) firearms-
related homicides, (3) non-lethal firearms-related victimizations, (4) gun-related mortality rates,
(5) use of firearms for personal defense, and (6) recreational use of firearms. In some cases, the
data presented are more than 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.8 Seventy-four percent of those individuals were reported to own more than one
firearm.9 According to the ATF, by the end of 1996 approximately 242 million firearms were
available for sale to or were possessed by civilians in the United States.10 That total includes
roughly 72 million handguns (mostly pistols, revolvers, and derringers), 76 million rifles, and 64
million shotguns.11 By 2000, the number of firearms had increased to approximately 259 million:
92 million handguns, 92 million rifles, and 75 million shotguns.12 By 2007, the number of

6 National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (Washington, DC: 2005), p. 48.
7 Ibid., p. 49.
8 Jens Ludwig and Phillip J. Cook, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NCJ
165476, May 1999, http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf.
9 Ibid.
10 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Commerce in Firearms in the United
States
, February 2000, pp. A3-A5.
11 Ibid., pp. A3-A5.
12 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Firearms Commerce in the United
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4

Gun Control Legislation

firearms had increased to approximately 294 million: 106 million handguns, 105 million rifles,
and 83 million shotguns.13
In the past, most guns available for sale were produced domestically. In recent years, 1 million to
2 million handguns were manufactured each year, along with 1 million to 1.5 million rifles and
fewer than 1 million shotguns.14 From 2001 through 2007, however, handgun imports nearly
doubled, from 711,000 to nearly 1.4 million.15 During the same time period, rifle imports
increased from 228,000 to 632,000, and shotgun imports increased from 428,000 to 726,000.16
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 and shotguns.17 Data are not available on
the number of “assault weapons” in private possession or available for sale, but one study
estimated that 1.5 million assault weapons were privately owned in 1994.18
How Often Are Guns Used in Homicides?
As Table 1 shows, reports submitted by state and local law enforcement agencies to the FBI and
published annually in the Uniform Crime Reports19 indicate that the firearms-related murder rate
per 100,000 of the population decreased from 6.6 for 1993 to 3.6 for 2000. The rate held steady at
3.6 for 2001 and fluctuated thereafter between a high of 3.9 for 2006 and a low of 3.3 for 2009.
Table 1. Firearms-Related Murder Victims, 1993-2009
Rate per 100,000
Estimated Firearms-
Rate per 100,000
Year Murder
Victims
of the Population
Related Murder Victimsa
of the Population
1993 24,526
9.5
17,069
6.6
1994 23,326
9.0
16,325
6.3
1995 21,606
8.2
14,727
5.6
1996 19,645
7.4
13,261
5.0
1997 18,208
6.8
12,334
4.6
1998 16,974
6.3
11,012
4.1
1999 15,522
5.7
10,113
3.7

(...continued)
States 2001/2002, ATF P 9000.4, April 2002, pp. E1-E3.
13 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Annual Firearm
Manufacturing and Export Reports for 2002 through 2007
, along with firearms import data provided by the ATF
Firearms and Explosives Import Branch.
14 Ibid.
15 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Firearms and Explosives Import
Branch.
16 Ibid.
17 Ned Schwing, 2005 Standard Catalog of Firearms: The Collector’s Price and Reference Guide, 15th edition (Iola,
Wisconsin, 2005).
18 Christopher S. Koper, Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun
Violence, 1994-2003
(Washington, DC: July 2004).
19 See http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.
Congressional Research Service
5

Gun Control Legislation

Rate per 100,000
Estimated Firearms-
Rate per 100,000
Year Murder
Victims
of the Population
Related Murder Victimsa
of the Population
2000 15,586
5.5
10,193
3.6
2001 16,037
5.6
10,112
3.6
2002 16,229
5.6
10,832
3.8
2003 16,528
5.7
11,010
3.8
2004 16,148
5.5
10,657
3.6
2005 16,740
5.6
11,353
3.8
2006 17,318
5.8
11,527
3.9
2007 17,157
5.7
11,489
3.8
2008 16,442
5.4
10,865
3.6
2009 15,241
5.0
10,233
3.3
Source: CRS compilation of FBI crime statistics reported annually in the Uniform Crime Reports, 1993-2009, and
supplementary UCR homicide data reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
a. The number of firearms-related murder victims was estimated by applying the percentage of firearms-
related murders for which the cause of death was known to the number of all reported murder and non-
negligent homicide victims for which the cause was known or unknown.
How Prevalent Are Gun-Related Fatalities?
The source of national data on firearms deaths is the publication Vital Statistics, published each
year by the National Center for Health Statistics. Firearms deaths reported by coroners are
presented in five categories: homicides, legal interventions,20 suicides, accidents, and unknown
circumstances. For these categories, the data are presented below for 1993 through 2007 in two
tables, one for all deaths and the other for juvenile deaths.
Table 2. Firearms-Related Deaths for All Ages
1993-2007
Legal
Total
%
Year Homicides
Interventions Suicides Accidents Unknown
Deaths
Change
1993 18,253
318 18,940 1,521 563 39,596

1994 17,527
339 18,765 1,356 518 38,506 -2.8%
1995 15,551
284 18,503 1,225 394 35,958 -6.6%
1996 14,037
290 18,166 1,134 413 34,041 -5.3%
1997 13,252
270 17,566 981 367 32,437 -4.7%
1998 11,798
304 17,424 866 316 30,709 -5.3%
1999 10,828
299 16,599 824 324 28,875 -6.0%
2000 10,801
270 16,586 776 230 28,664 -0.7%

20 “Legal interventions” include deaths (in these cases by firearms) that involve legal uses of force (justifiable homicide
or manslaughter), usually by the police.
Congressional Research Service
6

Gun Control Legislation

Legal
Total
%
Year Homicides
Interventions Suicides Accidents Unknown
Deaths
Change
2001 11,348
323 16,869 802 231 29,574 3.2%
2002 11,829
300 17,108 762 243 30,243 2.3%
2003 11,920
347 16,907 730 232 30,137 -0.4%
2004 11,624
311 16,750 649 235 29,570 -1.9%
2005 12,352
330 17,002 789 221 30,695 3.8%
2006 12,791
360 16,883 642 220 30,897 0.7%
2007 12,632
351 17,352 613 276 31,224 1.1%
Source: National Center for Health Statistics.
As Table 2 shows, firearms fatalities decreased continuously from 39,595 in 1993 to 28,664 in
2000, for an overall decrease of nearly 28%. Compared with firearms deaths in 2000, such deaths
increased by 3.2% in 2001 to 29,574, and increased again, by 2.3%, in 2002 to 30,243. They
decreased by 0.3% in 2003 to 30,137, and decreased again, by 1.9%, in 2004 to 29,570. Firearms
fatalities increased by 3.8% in 2005 to 30,694, by 0.7% in 2006 to 30,897, and by 1.1% in 2007
to 31,224. Of the 2007 total, 12,983 were homicides or due to legal intervention, 17,352 were
suicides, 612 were unintentional (accidental) shootings, and 276 were of unknown causes.21
Table 3. Firearms-Related Deaths for Juveniles
1993-2007
Legal
Total
%
Year Homicides
Interventions Suicides Accidents Unknown Deaths
Change
1993
1,975 16 832
392 76 3,292

1994
1,912 20 902
403 81 3,319
0.8%
1995
1,780 16 836
330 72 3,035
-8.6%
1996
1,473
9 720
272 49 2,524
-16.8%
1997
1,308
7 679
247 43 2,285
-9.5%
1998
1,045 17 648
207 54 1,972
-13.7%
1999
1,001
9 558
158 50 1,777
-9.9%
2000
819 15 537
150 23 1,545
-13.1%
2001
835
6 451
125 16 1,434
-7.2%
2002
872
7 423
115 26 1,444
0.7%
2003
805
8 377
102 25 1,318
-8.7%
2004
868
6 384
105 22 1,386
5.2%

21 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.
Congressional Research Service
7

Gun Control Legislation

Legal
Total
%
Year Homicides
Interventions
Suicides Accidents Unknown Deaths
Change
2005
921
5 412
127 25 1,491
7.6%
2006
1,082 14 371
102 24 1,594
6.9%
2007
1,038
9 325
112 36 1,520
-4.6%
Source: National Center for Health Statistics.
As Table 3 shows, there were 1,520 juvenile (younger than 18 years old) firearms-related deaths
in 2007. Of the juvenile total, 1,047 were homicides or due to legal intervention, 325 were
suicides, 112 were unintentional, and 36 were of unknown causes. From 1993 to 2001, juvenile
firearms-related deaths decreased by an average rate of 10% annually, for an overall decrease of
56%. From 2001 to 2002, such deaths increased slightly, by less than 1%, but declined by nearly
9% from 2002 to 2003. They increased for the next three years, from 2002 through 2006, by 5%
to 7%, but decreased by nearly 5.0% in 2007.22
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 U.S. Census Bureau 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 2009, BJS
estimated that, nationwide, there were 4.3 million non-lethal violent crimes (rape or sexual
assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault).23 Weapons were used in 22% of these
incidents, and firearms were used by offenders in 8% of these incidents.24 The estimated number
of firearms-related non-lethal violent crime incidents decreased from 428,670 in 2000 to 326,090
in 2009, and from 2.4 persons to 1.4 per 100,000 of the population ages 12 and older.25
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.26 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.27 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

22 Ibid.
23 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Criminal
Victimization, 2009
, by Jennifer L. Truman and Michael R. Rand, p. 8.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 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://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt.
27 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
8

Gun Control Legislation

had been used 2.1 million times per year for self-defense, and that all types of guns had been used
approximately 2.5 million times a year for that purpose during the 1988-1993 period.28
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, 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 because 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.29
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 1994.30 The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) reported that there were more than 14.7 million persons
who were paid license holders in 200331 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.32 The FWS reported that there were 14.4 million paid
license holders in 2010.33
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 firearms laws are
stricter than federal law. For example, some states require permits to obtain firearms and impose a

28 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.
29 Jens Ludwig and Phillip J. Cook, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,
NCJ 165476, May 1999, p. 2.
30 Ibid., p. 3.
31 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Hunting License Report (December 2,
2004).
32 American Sports Data, Inc., The SUPERSTUDY of Sports Participation.
33 U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Hunting License Report (December 10,
2010).
Congressional Research Service
9

Gun Control Legislation

waiting period for firearms 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 and 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.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA)
As stated in the GCA, the purpose of federal firearms 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 and 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 Attorney General 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.
As amended by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 1993 (P.L. 103-159), the GCA
requires background checks be completed for all non-licensed persons seeking to obtain firearms
from federal firearms licensees. Private transactions between persons “not engaged in the
business” are not covered by the recordkeeping or the background check provisions of the GCA.
These transactions and other matters such as possession, registration, and the issuance of licenses
to firearms owners may be covered by state laws or local ordinances. For a listing of other major
firearms and related statutes, see the Appendix.
Firearms Transfer and Possession Eligibility
Under current law, there are nine classes of persons prohibited from possessing or receiving
firearms:
• persons convicted or under indictment in any court of a crime punishable by
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
• fugitives from justice;
• drug users or addicts of any controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 802));
Congressional Research Service
10

Gun Control Legislation

• persons adjudicated as “mental defectives” or committed to mental institutions;
• unauthorized immigrants and most nonimmigrant visitors (with some exceptions
in the latter case);
• persons dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces;
• persons who have renounced their U.S. citizenship;
• persons under court-order restraints related to harassing, stalking, or threatening
an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; and
• persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.34
Since 1994, moreover, it has been a federal offense for any non-licensed person to transfer a
handgun to anyone younger than 18 years old. It has also been illegal for anyone younger than 18
years old 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 Firearms Transfers
Persons who are federally licensed to be engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing, or
selling firearms are known as “federal firearms licensees (FFLs).” Under current law, FFLs may
ship, transport, and receive firearms that have moved in interstate and foreign commerce. FFLs
are currently required to verify with the FBI through a background check that non-licensed
persons are eligible to possess a firearm before subsequently transferring a firearm to them. FFLs
must also verify the identity of non-licensed transferees by inspecting a government-issued
identity document (e.g., a driver’s license).
FFLs may engage in interstate transfers of firearms among themselves without conducting
background checks. Licensees may transfer long guns (rifles and 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. FFLs, however, may not transfer handguns
to unlicensed out-of-state residents. Transfer of handguns by FFLs to anyone younger than 21
years old is also prohibited, as is the transfer of long guns to anyone younger than 18 years old
(18 U.S.C. §922(b)). Also, FFLs are required to submit “multiple sales reports” to the Attorney
General if any person purchases two or more handguns within five business days.
Furthermore, FFLs are required to maintain records on all acquisitions and dispositions of
firearms. They are obligated to respond to ATF agents requesting firearms tracing information
within 24 hours. Under certain circumstances, ATF agents may inspect, without search warrants,
their business premises, inventory, and gun records.
Private Firearms Transfers
Non-licensees are prohibited from acquiring firearms from out-of-state sources (except for long
guns acquired from FFLs under the conditions described above). Non-licensees 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

34 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) and (n).
Congressional Research Service
11

Gun Control Legislation

federal offense for non-licensees to knowingly transfer a firearm to prohibited persons. It is also
notable that firearms transfers initiated through the Internet are subject to the same federal laws as
transfers initiated in any other manner.35
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)36 as an amendment to the Gun Control Act
of 1968, requiring background checks for firearms transfers between FFLs 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 firearms 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 five business days to make such
eligibility determinations. Under the interim provisions, 12.7 million firearms background checks
(for handguns) were completed during that four-year period, resulting in 312,000 denials.
Permanent Provisions
On November 30, 1998, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) activated the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to facilitate firearms-related background checks,
when the permanent provisions of the Brady Act became effective.37 Through NICS, FFLs
conduct background checks on non-licensee applicants for both handgun and long gun transfers.
The objective of a Brady background check is to ensure that an unlicensed transferee is not a
prohibited person under the GCA.38 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 firearms transfers
and possession.
As part of a Brady background check, an FFL is required to submit a prospective firearm
transferee’s name, sex, race, date of birth, and state of residence through NICS. Social security
numbers and other numeric identifiers are optional, but the submission of such data is likely to
increase the timeliness of the background check (and reduce misidentifications).39 The
transferee’s information is crosschecked against three computerized databases/systems to
determine firearms transfer/possession eligibility. Those systems include the NICS index,
Interstate Identification Index (III), and National Crime Information Center (NCIC).40 If the
transferee indicates that he is foreign born, his information is also checked against the

35 For further information, see CRS Report RS20957, Internet Firearm Sales, by T. J. Halstead.
36 107 Stat. 1536, November 30, 1993.
37 P.L. 103-159; November 30, 1993; 107 Stat. 1536.
38 P.L. 90-618; October 22, 1968; 82 Stat. 1213; codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et al.
39 Querying Records in the System, 28 C.F.R. § 25.7.
40 Accessing Records in the System, 28 C.F.R. § 25.6.
Congressional Research Service
12

Gun Control Legislation

immigration and naturalization databases maintained by the Department of Homeland Security,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.41
According to the FBI, the NICS index contains disqualifying records not found in either the III or
NCIC on all the classes of prohibited persons enumerated in the GCA. It also includes records on
persons previously denied firearms transfers. As of May 2010, the NICS index included a little
over 6 million records.42 The III, or “Triple I,” is a computerized criminal history index pointer
system that the FBI maintains so that records on persons arrested and convicted of felonies and
serious misdemeanors at either the federal or state level can be shared nationally. All 50 states and
the District of Columbia participate in the III, and the system holds indices to nearly 70 million
criminal history records.43 The NCIC includes “hot files” on information that is of immediate
importance and applicability to law enforcement officials. Several NCIC hot files include over
4.4 million records on potentially prohibited persons. Hence, those hot files are pertinent to the
Brady background check process. They include files on
• wanted persons (fugitives),
• persons subject to domestic abuse restraining orders,
• deported alien felons,
• persons in the U.S. Secret Service protective file,
• foreign fugitives, and
• known and appropriately suspected terrorists.
While the FBI handles background checks entirely for some states, other states serve as full or
partial points of contact (POCs) for background check purposes. In POC states, FFLs contact a
state agency, and the state agency contacts the FBI for such checks. 44
As part of the Brady background check process, NICS will respond to an FFL or state official
with a NICS Transaction Number (NTN) and one of three outcomes: (1) “proceed” with transfer
or permit/license issuance, because a prohibiting record was not found; (2) “denied,” indicating a

41 Those databases include the Central Index System (CIS), Computer Linked Application Information Management
System (CLAIMS), Deportable Alien Control System (DACS), National Automated Immigration Lookout System
(NAIL II), Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS), Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS),
Redesigned Naturalization Casework System (RNACS), Refugee, Asylum, and Parole System (RAPS), Enforcement
Case Tracking System (ENFORCE), and the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS).
42 U.S. Department of Justice, Report to Congress Pursuant to the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (P.L.
110-180)
, July 1, 2010, Appendix C.
43 Ibid., Appendix A.
44 In 13 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, whereas 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 30 non-POC states, the District of Columbia, and four
territories (Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands), FFLs contact the FBI directly to
conduct background checks through NICS for both handgun and long gun transfers. For state agencies (POCs),
background checks may not be as expeditious, but they may be more thorough because 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. 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.
Congressional Research Service
13

Gun Control Legislation

prohibiting record was found; or (3) “delayed,” indicating that the system produced information
that suggested there could be a prohibiting record. Under the last outcome, a firearms transfer
may be “delayed” for up to three business days while NICS examiners attempt to ascertain
whether the person is prohibited.45 At the end of the three-day period, an FFL may proceed with
the transfer at his discretion if he has not heard from the FBI about the matter. The FBI,
meanwhile, will continue to work the NICS adjudication for up to 90 days, during which the
transaction is considered to be in an “open” status. If the FBI ascertains that the person is not in a
prohibited status at any time during the 90 days, then the FBI will contact the FFL through NICS
with a proceed response. If the person is subsequently found to be prohibited, the FBI will inform
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and a firearms retrieval process
will be initiated.
Under no circumstances is an FFL informed about the prohibiting factor upon which a denial is
based.46 Under the Brady background check process, however, a denied person may challenge the
accuracy of the underlying record(s) upon which his denial is based.47 He would initiate this
process by requesting (usually in writing) the reason for the denial from the agency that
conducted the NICS check (the FBI or POC). The denying agency has five business days to
respond to the request. Upon receipt of the reason and underlying record for the denial, the denied
person may challenge the accuracy of that record. If the record is found to be inaccurate, the
denying agency is legally obligated to correct that record.48
As with other screening systems, particularly those that are name-based, false positives occur as a
result of Brady background checks, but the frequency of these misidentifications is unreported.
Nevertheless, the FBI has taken steps to mitigate false positives. In July 2004, DOJ issued a
regulation that established the NICS Voluntary Appeal File (VAF), which is part of the NICS
Index (described above).49 DOJ was prompted to establish the VAF to minimize the
inconvenience incurred by some prospective firearms transferees (purchasers) who have names or
birth dates similar to those of prohibited persons. So as not to be misidentified in the future, these
persons agree to authorize the FBI to maintain personally identifying information about them in
the VAF as a means to avoid future delayed transfers. Current law requires that NICS records on
approved firearm transfers, particularly information personally identifying the transferee, be
destroyed within 24 hours (see heading below, Background Check Fee and Record Retention).
Under the GCA, there is also a provision that allows the Attorney General (previously, the
Secretary of the Treasury) to consider petitions from a prohibited person for “relief from
disabilities” and have his firearms transfer and possession eligibility restored.50 Since FY1993,
however, a rider on the ATF annual appropriations for salaries and expenses has prohibited the
expenditure of any funding provided under that account on processing such petitions.51 While a

45 Accessing Records in the System, 28 C.F.R. § 25.6.
46 Statement of Daniel D. Roberts, Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Information Services, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on
Homeland Sec. and Gov’t Affairs
, 111th Cong., May 5, 2010.
47 Correction of Erroneous System Information, 28 C.F.R. § 25.10.
48 Ibid.
49 Final Rule, National Instant Criminal Background Check System Regulation, 69 Fed. Reg. 43892 (July 23, 2004)
(codified at 28 C.F.R. § 25.10(g)).
50 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). See also Relief from Disabilities Under the Act, 27 C.F.R. § 478.144.
51 For FY1993, see P.L. 102-393; 106 Stat. 1732 (1992). For FY2010, see P.L. 111-117; 123 Stat. 3128 (2009). The
FY2010 limitation provides: “That none of the funds appropriated herein shall be available to investigate or act upon
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14

Gun Control Legislation

prohibited person arguably could petition the Attorney General, bypassing ATF, such an
alternative has never been successfully tested. As a result, the only way a person can reacquire his
lost firearms eligibility is to have his civil rights restored or disqualifying criminal record(s)
expunged, or to be pardoned for his crime.
Table 4. Brady Background Checks for Firearms Transfers and Permits
1998-2009
Total Annual
S&L
POC
Year
Checks
Denials FBI
Checks Checks
FBI Denialsa
Denialsb
1998 893,127
18,647
507,000
386,127
8,836 9,811
1999 8,621,315 204,455
4,538,000
4,083,315 81,000
123,455
2000 7,698,643 153,087
4,260,270
3,438,373 66,808 86,279
2001 7,957,926 150,500
4,291,926
3,666,000 64,500 86,000
2002 7,805,792 135,973
4,248,893
3,556,899 60,739 75,234
2003 7,831,146 126,181
4,462,801
3,368,345 61,170 65,011
2004 8,083,809 125,842
4,685,018
3,398,791 63,675 62,167
2005 8,277,873 131,916
4,952,639
3,325,234 66,705 65,211
2006 8,612,201 134,442
5,262,752
3,349,449 69,930 64,512
2007 8,658,245 135,817
5,136,883
3,521,362 66,817 69,000
2008 9,900,711 147,080
5,813,249
4,087,462 70,725 76,355
2009 10,764,237 150,013
4,680,809
4,987,459 67,324 82,689
Total 95,105,025
1,613,953
54,242,859
40,862,166 748,229 865,724
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, available at
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=13.
Notes: On November 30, 1998, the interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (P.L.
103-159) ended, and the permanent provisions were implemented when the FBI stood up the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
a. In non-point of contact (non-POC) states, federal firearms licensees contact the FBI directly to conduct
NICS background checks.
b. In point of contact (POC) states, federal firearms licenses contact a state agency and, in turn, the state
agency contacts the FBI to conduct NICS background checks.
As shown in Table 4, under the permanent provisions of the Brady Act (December 1998 through
2009), more than 95.1 million checks were completed, resulting in more than 1.6 million denials,
or nearly a 1.7% denial rate. More than 54.2 million of these checks were completed entirely by
the FBI for non-point of contact (non-POC) states, the District of Columbia, and four territories.
Those checks resulted in a denial rate of nearly 1.4%. Nearly 40.9 million checks were conducted
by full or partial point of contact (POC) states.52 Those checks resulted in a higher denial rate of
2.1%. Table 5 shows breakouts for NICS denials by reasons and by denying agency.

(...continued)
applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c).”
52 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
15

Gun Control Legislation

Table 5. Estimated Brady Background Check Denials
(1999 through 2009)
Total
FBI
State
Local
Reasons for denial
Denials
%
Denials
%
Denials
%
Denials
%
Felony
904,904 56.1 482,608 64.5 387,491
52.8 34,806 26.4
indictment/conviction
State law prohibition
92,311
5.7
19,454
2.6
56,509
7.7
16,348
12.4
Domestic violence
237,323
14.7
119,717
16.0
99,808
13.6
17,798
13.5
Misdemeanor
176,210 10.9 86,795 11.6 74,122
10.1 15,293 11.6
conviction
Restraining order
61,113
3.8
32,922
4.4
25,686
3.5
2,505
1.9
Fugitive 101,001
6.3
49,383
6.6
49,904
6.8
1,714
1.3
Il egal alien
13,322
0.8
9,727
1.3
2,936
0.4
659
0.5
Mental illness or
28,637 1.8 4,489 0.6 18,347
2.5 5,801 4.4
disability
Drug user/addict
77,420
4.8
57,614
7.7
8,073
1.1
11,734
8.9
Local law prohibition
6,724
0.4
0

0

6,724
5.1
Other prohibitions
152,310
9.4
5,238
0.7
110,816
15.1
36,256
27.5
Totalsa 1,613,953
100.0
748,229
100.0
733,884
100.0
131,840
100.0
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Background Checks for
Firearms Transfers, 2009—Statistical Tables, by Michael Bowling,, et al., available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&i d=2214.
a. Denials by reason subtotals are based upon percentages reported by BJS, which were applied to total
denials by the FBI and state and local officials. Consequently, denials by reason may not sum precisely to the
totals.
National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP)
Under the Brady Act, Congress authorized a grant program known as the National Criminal
History Improvement Program (NCHIP), the initial goal of which was to improve electronic
access to firearms-related disqualifying records, particularly felony conviction records.53 DOJ’s
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) administers this program, under which grants are made to states
to assist in updating and automating criminal history and other related records so that they are
able to participate effectively in key federal criminal justice systems.54 Besides the NICS Index,
III, and NCIC, these systems also include the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification
System (IAFIS) and the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR).55 This grant program is
administered by BJS, which is part of the Office of Justice Programs.

53 For further information, see Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National
Criminal History Program (NCHIP): Improving Criminal History Records for Background Checks, 2005
, July 2006.
Hereafter referred to as Bureau of Justice Statistics, Improving Criminal History Records.
54 Ibid.
55 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
16

Gun Control Legislation

Table 6. NCHIP Appropriations, FY1995 though FY2011
(dollars in millions)
Fiscal Year
Appropriation
FY1995 100.000
FY1996 26.500
FY1997 51.750
FY1998 47.750
FY1999 45.000
FY2000 35.000
FY2001 35.000
FY2002 38.000
FY2003 42.721
FY2004 32.634
FY2005 27.577
FY2006 12.796
FY2007 12.805
FY2008 12.220
FY2009 13.000
FY2010 14.500
FY2011 16.567
Total 563.820
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Table 6 shows that over the last 17 years (FY1995-FY2011), Congress has appropriated nearly
$563.8 million for NCHIP, or an annual average of $33.2 million. Nevertheless, in 2007
congressional testimony following the April 16, 2007 VA Tech tragedy, DOJ reported that
approximately half of the 70 million criminal history records in the Interstate Identification Index
(III) were missing final dispositions—a circumstance that often results in delayed background
checks and firearms transfers.56 It was also reported that many states had not forwarded any
records on persons adjudicated mentally defective to the FBI. As of April 30, 2007, the FBI
reported that 22 states had contributed nearly 168,000 mental defective records to the FBI for
inclusion in the NICS index;57 however, other states had declined to report persons adjudicated
mentally defective to the FBI. In many cases, state mental health, patients’ rights, and privacy
laws prohibited the disclosure of those records.58 Other states may not have been able to report
such persons to the FBI because mental health “databanks” that would include such records are

56 Statement of Rachel L. Brand, Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy, Department of Justice at the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform Hearing on Lethal Loopholes in Gun Purchase Laws, May 10, 2007, p. 126.
57 Ibid, p. 138.
58 New York state, for example, had such a provision. See Section 33.13 of the Mental Health Law, which addresses
the rights of patients and confidentiality of mental health records. Since enactment of P.L. 110-180, however, the New
York State legislature addressed this issue and now provides mental defective records to the FBI for inclusion in the
NICS Index.
Congressional Research Service
17

Gun Control Legislation

not maintained.59 Following the VA Tech tragedy, the NICS mental defective file increased from
175,000 to 400,000 individual records, with California contributing more than 200,000 of those
records.60 By May 2010, that number had increased to more than 859,000 records, due in large
part to NCIS Improvement Amendments Act (described below).61 However, about half of the
states had not contributed any records or had contributed only a handful of such records.62
NICS Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP)
Under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007,63 Congress authorized the Attorney
General to make additional grants to states to improve further electronic access to records,
including court disposition and corrections records, that are necessary to fully facilitate NICS
background checks. Under the act, the Attorney General is required to report annually to
Congress on federal department and agency compliance with the act’s provisions. Because BJS
administers this program, the BJS Director is required to report annually on the progress that
states are making in providing reasonable estimates of the number of firearms-related
disqualifying records that they have jurisdiction over, as well as the number of those records that
have been made accessible to the FBI for NICS background check purposes.64 BJS has designated
this grant program the “NICS Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP),” although
congressional appropriations documents simply refer to it as “NICS improvement.”
Table 7. NICS Improvement Authorizations and Appropriations under P.L. 110-180
(dollars in millions)
Fiscal Year
Section 103(e)
Section 301(e)
Actual Appropriation
FY2009 125
62.5 10.000
FY2010 250 125.0 20.000
FY2011 250 125.0 16.567
FY2012 125
62.5

FY2013 125
62.5

Total 875 437.5
46.547
As shown in Table 7, section 103(e) of the act included an authorization for appropriations for
FY2009 through FY2013. The act directs that the grants provided under this authorization be
made “in a manner consistent” with NCHIP. The act also requires that between 3% and 10% of
each grant be allocated for a relief from disabilities program for persons adjudicated mentally
defective. Also, as shown in Table 7, section 301(e) of the act included an additional

59 Donna M. Norris, M.D., et al., “Firearms Laws, Patients, and the Roles of Psychiatrists,” American Journal of
Psychiatry, 163:8, August 2006, p. 1394.
60 Dan Eggen, “FBI’s Gun Ban Listing Swells: Thousands Added To File Marked ‘Mental Defective,’” Washington
Post
, November 30, 2007, A01.
61 U.S. Department of Justice, Report to Congress Pursuant to Requirements of the NICS Improvement Amendments
Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-180)
, July 1, 2010, Appendix C. Records Available in the NICS, as of May 10, 2010.
62 Ibid.
63 P.L. 110-180; January 8, 2008; 121 Stat. 2559.
64 See U.S. Department of Justice, Report to Congress Pursuant to the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
(P.L. 110-180)
, July 1, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
18

Gun Control Legislation

authorization for appropriations for the same fiscal years to improve state court computer systems
to improve timeliness of criminal history dispositions. Under both authorizations, up to 5% of all
grant funding may be set aside to provide assistance to tribal governments.
As an additional incentive, section 102 of P.L. 110-180 also provides that on January 8, 2011, any
state that provides at least 90% of disqualifying records is eligible for a waiver of the 10% match
requirement under NCHIP for two years.65 To be eligible for the waiver, as well as section 103
grants, states are required to provide BJS with a reasonable estimate of the number of NICS-
related disqualifying records that they hold within 180 days of enactment (July 6, 2008).
To further encourage compliance, section 104 of P.L. 110-180 includes a schedule of
discretionary and mandatory reductions in Byrne Justice Assistance Grants (JAGs)66 for states
that do not provide certain percentages of disqualifying records:
• for a two-year period (January 8, 2011, through January 8, 2013), the Attorney
General may withhold up to 3% of JAG funding from any state that provides less
than 50% of disqualifying records;
• for a five-year period (January 8, 2013, through January 8, 2018), the Attorney
General may withhold up to 4% of JAG funding from any state that provides less
than 70% of disqualifying records; and
• after January 8, 2018, the Attorney General is required to withhold 5% of JAG
funding from any state that provides less than 90% of disqualifying records.
The Attorney General’s assessments of a state’s progress is to be based upon the reasonable
estimates that the state itself is required to provide under the act for the purposes of implementing
the section 103 grants and the section 102 NCHIP waiver (discussed above).67 The act also allows
the Attorney General to waive the mandatory 5% cuts if a state provides substantial evidence that
it is making reasonable compliance efforts.
Congress appropriated $10 million for NARIP in FY2009 and $20 million in FY2010. These
amounts are well below the authorized levels in P.L. 110-180. In FY2009, BJS awarded $2.5
million in NARIP grants to the following grantees (individual amounts in parentheses):
• Nevada Department of Public Safety ($798,000),
• New York Division of Criminal Justice Services ($937,000), and

65 For FY2005-FY2010, BJS invoked its discretionary authority to increase the match requirement to 20%. For
FY2011, BJS has reportedly reduced the match requirement to 10%, the percentage match requirement set out under
the Crime Identification Technology Act (CITA; P.L. 105-251); CRS conversation with BJS on March 7, 2011.
66 For further information, see CRS Report RS22416, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program:
Legislative and Funding History
, by Nathan James.
67 As of July 1, 2010, forty-one states and one territory had provided estimates to DOJ. As of December 31, 2009,
sixty-eight federal departments or agencies had also responded to a DOJ survey related to their obligations under P.L.
110-180. Twenty-two reported possessing no disqualifying information. Twenty-three reported possessing secondary
disqualifying information (e.g., employment background check investigative results). Ten agencies claimed to create
and possess disqualifying information. And, ATF is reviewing those claims to determine whether that information was
relevant to a NICS background check. Fourteen agencies needed further clarification from DOJ. See U.S. Department
of Justice, Report to Congress Pursuant to the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-180), July 1,
2010, pp. 5-6.
Congressional Research Service
19

Gun Control Legislation

• Oregon State Police ($771,000).68
For FY2010, BJS awarded $16.9 million in NARIP grants to the following grantees (individual
amounts in parentheses):
• Florida Department of Law Enforcement ($3.159 million),
• Idaho State Police ($1.950 million),
• Illinois State Police ($1.210 million),
• New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts ($860,000),
• New York Division of Criminal Justice Services ($5.995 million),
• Oregon State Police ($2.0 million),
• Texas Department of Public Safety ($752,000), and
• Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance ($981,000).69
To be eligible for NARIP grants, states must certify that they have established a relief from
disabilities program for persons adjudicated to be mentally defective, whereby they can petition
to have their gun rights restored. For FY2009, only 14 states submitted certification applications
and only three were certified (Nevada, New York, and Oregon) and awarded grants. DOJ
suggested that one factor that might have inhibited states from applying for NARIP grants is
opposition at the state level to restoring firearm rights under any circumstance.70 Another factor
that might have influenced a state’s choice is that NARIP funding only became available in
March 2009, leaving little time to respond to the June 22, 2009, certification deadline.71 Other
factors included budget constraints and the need to pass implementing legislation.72 As shown
above, eight states were awarded grants for FY2010. As of September 30, 2010, nine states had
been certified.73 For FY2011, Congress appropriated $16.6 million for NARIP in the Department
of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (H.R. 1473; P.L. 112-10).
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.74 Beginning
in FY2004, that provision also included language to require the next-day destruction of approved

68 U.S. Department of Justice, Report to Congress Pursuant to Requirements of the NICS Improvement Amendment Act
of 2007 (P.L. 110-180)
, July 1, 2010, p. 10.
69 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “NICS Improvement
Amendments Act of 2007,” available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=49.
70 U.S. Department of Justice, Report to Congress Pursuant to the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (P.L.
110-180)
, July 1, 2010, p. 12.
71 Ibid.
72 Ibid.
73 CRS conversation with BJS on March 7, 2011.
74 In the 110th Congress, the House-passed H.R. 2640 and Senate-reported S. 2084 include provisions that would
permanently codify the NICS fee prohibition (see discussion of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
above). For FY2008, such a prohibition is also included on an annual basis in the House-passed and Senate-reported
CJS appropriations bills (H.R. 3093/S. 1745).
Congressional Research Service
20

Gun Control Legislation

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, firearms
owners, or approved firearms transactions and dispositions.
Nevertheless, under Attorney General Janet Reno DOJ proposed a rule on October 30, 1998, that
would have allowed such records to be maintained for up to six months for audit purposes.75 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 firearms transfers for certain audit purposes.76 On January 22, 2001,
DOJ promulgated a final rule that allowed such records to maintained for up to 90 days.77
Attorney General John Ashcroft opposed this rule, however, and DOJ proposed another rule on
July 6, 2001, that called for the next-day destruction of those files.78
In July 2002, meanwhile, GAO reported that under Attorney General Reno, the FBI had
conducted “non-routine” searches of the NICS audit log for law enforcement 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 firearms-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.79
Despite those adverse affects, opponents of greater federal gun control viewed the non-routine
use of NICS records as being beyond the scope of authority given to the Attorney General under
the Brady Act. GAO reported that DOJ took steps to minimize the adverse affects of the next-day
destruction of those records. In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, additional
issues regarding Brady background checks emerged (see heading below, Brady Background and
Terrorist Watch List Checks).
Emerging Issues in the 112th Congress
The gun control debate in the 112th Congress has revolved around three focal points, with a fourth
focal point emerging in May 2011. The first focal point is the shootings in Tucson, AZ, on
January 8, 2011, in which Representative Gabrielle Giffords was severely wounded. The second
focal point is ATF’s administrative proposal to require multiple rifle sales reports from Southwest
border state gun dealers. And, the third focal point is ATF’s conduct of a Phoenix, AZ-based
Project Gunrunner investigation known as “Operation Fast and Furious.” Congress also finalized

75 63 Federal Register 58303.
76 NRA v. Reno (No. 99-5270, 216 F. 3d 122; 2000 U.S. App. Lexis 15906).
77 66 Federal Register 6470.
78 66 Federal Register 35567.
79 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.
Congressional Research Service
21

Gun Control Legislation

ATF’s appropriation for FY2011 and is considering the Administration’s FY2012 request for that
agency. More recently, firearms-related issues have arisen with proposed amendments to bills that
would extend an expiring USA PATRIOT Act provision related to national security investigations
and FBI access to business records.
Tucson Shootings
Following the Tucson shootings, issues were raised about the shooter’s mental illness and drug
use, as well as his use of large capacity ammunition feeding devices (LCAFDs). Another issue
that was raised was banning firearms within the proximity of certain high-level federal officials.
Mental Illness and Drug Use as Prohibiting Factors
As described above, persons who have been “adjudicated mental defective,”80 or who are
“unlawful users of or addicted to any controlled substance,”81 are prohibited from possessing a
firearm or having one transferred to them. The FBI maintains files on those persons as part of the
NICS Index. According to the FBI, as of December 31, 2010, the NICS Index included 1,107,758
records on individuals who had been adjudicated mental defective.82 Although the NICS Index
included 2,092 records on individuals who are known to be drug users and addicts,83 arrest
records for drug offenses are also contained in the III.
Following the Virginia Tech mass shooting on April 16, 2007, Congress passed the NICS
Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA; P.L. 110-180), a law that established incentives
to prompt state, local, and tribal governments to transfer mental defective files to the FBI for
inclusion in the NICS Index. Although this act focused on mentally ill persons who were
adjudicated to be a threat to themselves or others, it did not focus on drug users. As a
consequence, Congress could revisit the NIAA to increase incentives for state, local, and tribal
governments to transfer records on both categories of prohibited persons. Along these lines,
Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) released a “plan to prevent further tragedies” like Tucson.
The MAIG plan calls for the following steps:

80 For a definition of “adjudicated mental defective,” see the “Mental Defective Adjudications” section on p. 38.
81 Under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” means a person who uses a
controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of [a] controlled substance; and any
person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician.
Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather
that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A
person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the
precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may
be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that
reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past
year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or
persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered
within the past year. For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference of current use may be drawn
from recent disciplinary or other administrative action based on confirmed drug use, e.g., court-martial conviction,
nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on drug use or drug rehabilitation failure.
82 See http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics-index.
83 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
22

Gun Control Legislation

• Fully funding the NICS Improvement Amendments Act (P.L. 110-180) to help
agencies and states cover the costs of gathering records on prohibited persons and
making them electronically available to the FBI;
• Providing larger cuts (up to 50%) to a wider array of federal law enforcement
assistance grant programs84 for not providing such records than what is currently
provided for under P.L. 110-180;
• Requiring every federal agency to certify to the Attorney General twice a year
that all disqualifying records, including those related to drug use or addiction,
have been electronically provided to the FBI;
• Clarifying and expanding regulatory definitions related to mental health and drug
use; and
• Safeguarding the rights of people who are listed in databases queried by NICS.85
Senator Charles Schumer has introduced a bill that would amend the P.L. 110-180 to advance
certain deadlines and apply deeper cuts to a wider array of federal law enforcement assistance
grant programs (S. 436). Representatives Carolyn McCarthy and John Dingell have reportedly
submitted a request to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for an assessment of
weaknesses in firearms-related background check procedures.86
Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices
The Tucson shooter was reportedly armed with a 9mm Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol loaded with
31 rounds in a 33-round extended magazine.87 This pistol is normally equipped with a 15-round
magazine, two of which the shooter also had on his person. He also had another 33-round
extended magazine.88 He managed to fire at least 31 shots, emptying a single magazine. He killed
six people and wounded another 13, including Representative Giffords. Three bystanders, one of
whom was wounded, managed to subdue the shooter as he attempted to reload his second 30-plus
round magazine. Representative McCarthy has introduced a bill to reinstate a ban on magazines
that are capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds (H.R. 308). Such a ban was in effect
from September 13, 1994, through September 13, 2004, as part of the larger semiautomatic
assault weapons ban (described below). Senator Frank Lautenberg has introduced a similar bill
(S. 32).

84 According to MAIG, such programs could include the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, Title II Juvenile
Justice grants, Juvenile Accountability Block Grants, and Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws Block Grants.
85 Mayors Against Illegal Guns, “A Plan to Prevent Future Tragedies,” January 2011, available at
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org.
86 James V. Grimaldi and Sari Horwitz, “Cuts Threaten ATF’s Efforts to Stem Flow of Guns South,” Washington Post,
January 31, 2011, p. 1.
87 David A. Fahrenthold and Clarence Williams, “Congresswoman Shot in Tucson Rampage,” Washington Post,
January 9, 2011, p. A1.
88 Most semiautomatic pistol magazines, or clips, are designed to self-contained within the handle of the pistol. The 33
round extended magazines used by the shooter protrude well beneath the butt of the pistol handle.
Congressional Research Service
23

Gun Control Legislation

Banning Firearms within the Proximity of Federal Officials
Representatives Laura Richardson and Peter King have introduced bills (H.R. 367 and H.R. 496)
that would prohibit most people from carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of certain high-level
federal officials while those officials were holding a public event, campaigning for office, or
otherwise acting in an official capacity. Both bills arguably are modeled on the Gun Free School
Zone Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-647), which prohibits firearm possession in a school zone (on the
campus of a public or private school or within 1,000 feet of the grounds).89
ATF Southwest Border Gun Trafficking Investigations
Under Project Gunrunner, ATF has increased its efforts to staunch the flow of illegal guns from
the United States to Mexico through stepped up enforcement of domestic gun control laws and
cooperation with Mexican authorities. For example, ATF has trained Mexican law enforcement
officials to use its eTrace program, through which investigators are sometimes able to trace the
origin and commercial trail of seized firearms and, in the process, identify gun trafficking trends
and develop investigative leads. In November 2010, the DOJ Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) released an evaluation of Project Gunrunner.90 While the OIG was somewhat critical of
ATF’s eTrace progam for yielding little “usable investigative leads,”91 the OIG recommended that
ATF work with DOJ to develop a reporting requirement for multiple long gun sales92 because
Mexican DTOs have demonstrated a marked preference for military-style firearms capable of
accepting high-capacity magazines.93 The OIG also recommended that ATF focus its investigative
efforts on more complex criminal conspiracies involving high-level traffickers rather than on low-
level straw purchasers.
Multiple Rifles Sales Report Proposal94
On December 17, 2010, DOJ and ATF published a “60-day emergency notice of information
collection” in the Federal Register,95 in which they requested that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and clear a proposed information collection initiative by January 5, 2011
on an expedited basis under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.96 Under this proposal, ATF
would require federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to report to ATF whenever they make multiple
sales or other dispositions of more than one rifle within five consecutive business days to an

89 For the statutory definition of a “school zone,” see 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25). For the prohibition, see 18 U.S.C. §
922(q).
90 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Review of ATF’s Project Gunrunner, I-2011-001,
November 2010, http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e1101.pdf.
91 Ibid, p. 73.
92 Ibid, p. 40.
93 Ibid, p. 38.
94 This section was coauthored by the report’s author, William J. Krouse, and Vivian S. Chu and Vanessa K. Burrows,
CRS Legislative Attorneys. Questions on case law related to demand letters should be referred to Ms. Chu. Questions
on the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 should be referred to Ms. Burrows.
95 Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, “60-Day Emergency Notice of
Information Collection Under Review: Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles,” 75 Federal
Register
79021, December 17, 2010.
96 For further information, see CRS Report R40636, Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA): OMB and Agency
Responsibilities and Burden Estimates
, by Curtis W. Copeland and Vanessa K. Burrows.
Congressional Research Service
24

Gun Control Legislation

unlicensed person. Such reporting would be limited to firearms that are (1) semiautomatic, (2)
chambered for ammunition of greater than .22 caliber, and (3) capable of accepting a detachable
magazine. On December 20, 2010, acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson later clarified that the
proposed multiple rifle sales reporting requirement would be (1) limited to FFLs operating in
Southwest border states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California) and (2) confined initially
to a one-year pilot project.97
On February 4, 2011, OMB informed ATF that it would not grant the emergency approval.98
Nevertheless, the notice’s 60-day comment period ran through February 16, 2011. Following DOJ
and ATF consideration the initial round of comments, a subsequent 30-day comment period was
invoked on April 29, 2010.99 At the conclusion of this comment period, OMB will have another
30 days, until the end of June, to issue a decision on the initiative.
It appears that some of the impetus for the information collection initiative was a
recommendation made by the DOJ OIG in November 2010.100 As described above, in that review
the OIG reported that ATF criminal investigations and firearms trace data indicated that Mexican
drug trafficking organizations had demonstrated a marked preference for long guns (rifles and
shotguns) capable of accepting detachable ammunition feeding devices.101 As a consequence, the
OIG recommended that ATF work with DOJ to explore options for seeking a multiple long sales
reporting requirement.102 In response to the OIG’s recommendation, however, acting ATF
Director Melson initially suggested that such a requirement could be beyond the ATF’s and the
DOJ’s authority under current law, but that ATF would “explore the full range of options to seek
information regarding multiple sales of long guns.”103
Notwithstanding this concern about its authority, it appears that DOJ and ATF collectively
concluded that there is sufficient authority under current law for ATF to collect reports on
multiple sales of certain long guns from FFLs. While the notice was arguably short on detail,
supporting documentation posted on the OMB website suggested that ATF was proposing the
information collection under its authority to issue “demand letters.”104 Since the enactment of the
Gun Control Act (GCA) in 1968, the ATF and its predecessor agencies at the Department of the
Treasury105 have had the authority to issue “demand letters” to FFLs in order to obtain
information from the records that FFLs are required by law to maintain at their places of

97 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, “Acting Director Announces Demand Letters for Multiple
Sales of Specific Long Guns in Four Border States,” News Release, December 20, 2010.
98 Mike Lillis, “House Dems Upset with Delay on Gun Proposal Along Border,” The Hill, February 9, 2011, p. 3.
99 Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection Comments Requested: Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles,"
76 Federal Register 24058, April 29, 2011.
100 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division, Review of ATF’s
Project Gunrunner
, I-2011-001, November 2010.
101 Ibid, p. 40.
102 Ibid.
103 Ibid, p. 108.
104 In a sample demand letter on the OMB website, ATF specified that it would be issuing such a letter under 18 U.S.C.
§ 923(g)(5).
105 ATF was transferred from the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice, effective January 2003.
ATF was established in Treasury in 1972. Prior to that, it was a division within the Internal Revenue Service.
Congressional Research Service
25

Gun Control Legislation

business.106 Such letters have been primarily used to investigate and bring non-compliant FFLs
into line and to expedite the acquisition of trace data.107
ATF’s authority to issue demand letters to collect information under certain circumstances has
been challenged and upheld in the federal courts. In 2000, for example, ATF issued demand
letters to 41 FFLs who were deemed uncooperative because they had failed to comply with trace
request responses in a timely manner. In these demand letters, the ATF required the FFLs to
submit information concerning their firearm purchases and sales for the past three years and on a
monthly basis thereafter until told otherwise.108 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
held that 18 U.S.C. § 926(a), which prohibits the creation of a national registry of firearms,
firearms owners, and transactions, did not directly limit the defendant’s authority to issue demand
letters and was not violated because the ATF narrowly tailored the request to its tracing needs by
issuing the letter to the 0.1 % of FFLs nationwide.109
In 1999, the ATF sent out another demand letter to approximately 450 FFLs who had 10 or more
crime guns traced to them with a “time-to-crime” of three years or less. The demand letter
required the FFLs to report the acquisition of secondhand firearms, including identification of the
firearm but not the identities of the person from whom the secondhand firearm was acquired or
the person to whom the firearm was transferred.110 The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and
Ninth Circuits generally held that § 926(a) was not violated111 and that the appropriations rider
that prohibits ATF from spending money in connection with consolidating or centralizing records
was also not violated because a demand letter sent to less than 1% of all FFLs for a portion of
record information does not constitute consolidating or centralizing record information.112
Opponents of this initiative argue that (1) ATF does not enjoy sufficient authority to require
multiple rifle sales reports from FFLs; (2) such a reporting requirement would be unprecedented;
and (3) the data collection that would result would essentially constitute an illegal firearms

106 The original demand letter regulation appears to have been promulgated at the same time the Gun Control Act was
enacted in 1968. See Furnishing Transaction Information, 27 C.F.R. § 478.126, issued 33 Federal Register 18555,
18571, December 14, 1968. When the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) was passed in 1986, Congress made
explicit in statute: “Each licenses shall, when required by letter issued by the [Attorney General], and until notified to
the contrary in writing by the [Attorney General], submit on a form specified by the [Attorney General], for periods and
at the times specified in such letter, all record information required to be kept by this chapter or such lesser record
information as the [Attorney General] may specify.” See 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(5)(A).
107 When considering FOPA, it seems that Congress made clear that although they would statutorily authorize the ATF
to collect information pursuant to its demand letter authority, such authority “to request tracing information for dealers
can never be used to establish any centralized or regional registration about § 923(g)(5)(A) [in violation of § 926(a)]”
and “Congress had no intent to require all law-abiding gun dealers to report all their firearms transactions” to BATF.
Statement of Senator Orrin Hatch, 131 Cong. Rec. S9129 (July 9, 1985).
108 See RSM, Inc. v. Buckles, 254 F.3d 61,65-66 (4th Cir. 2001).
109 Ibid, p. 68. The court in RSM noted that although FOPA prohibited the creation of a national registry of firearms,
Congress also envisioned some sort of collection of firearms records so long as it was incidental to some other statutory
function specifically delegated to ATF.
110 See Blaustein & Reich, Inc. v. Buckles, 365 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2004); J&G Sales Ltd., v. Truscott, 473 F.3d 1043
(9th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 208 (2007).
111 The Fourth Circuit in Blaustein & Reich noted that § 926(a) has no bearing on the regulation that authorizes the use
of demand letters because that section only prohibits the promulgation of rules and regulations prescribed after 1986,
and the regulation on demand letters dates back to 1968. Furthermore, it stated that § 926(a) has no bearing on §
923(g)(5)(A) because “the former provision pertains only to ‘rule[s]’ and ‘regulation[s]’ and the latter is a statute, not a
rule or regulation” (modification in the original). Blaustein & Reich, 365 F.3d at 288, 290.
112 Blaustein & Reich, 365 F.3d at 289.
Congressional Research Service
26

Gun Control Legislation

registry. Although this information collection initiative would require FFLs to provide ATF with
additional documentation on firearms transactions involving rifles, which has not previously been
required, it is not entirely unprecedented. On the other hand, an argument could be made that
ATF’s issuance of demand letters and the existing multiple handgun sales reporting requirement
are precedents for multiple rifle sales reports. In the past, as described above, ATF had
administratively required some FFLs to surrender firearms transaction records temporarily on a
much wider scale, when there were indications of noncompliance or illegal firearms trafficking.
Several Members of Congress, however, disagree with this decision and sent a letter to President
Obama voicing strong opposition to the proposed multiple sales report proposal.113 Those
Members maintain that if Congress authorized multiple handgun sales reporting in statute in
1986, then it is incumbent upon ATF to request that Congress provide it with similar statutory
authority for a multiple rifles sales reporting requirement.114 Meanwhile, on February 19, 2011,
the House adopted an amendment to the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (H.R. 1)
that would have prohibited ATF from implementing that requirement. While the House passed
H.R. 1, the Senate rejected this bill on March 9, 2011, for budgetary considerations that went well
beyond concerns about this policy rider. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (H.R. 1473; P.L. 112-10) does not include a similar rider.
Senator Jon Tester introduced a bill (S. 570) that would prohibit DOJ from collecting information
on multiple rifle or shotgun sales.
Operation Fast and Furious
In February 2011, ATF and Project Gunrunner came under renewed scrutiny for a Phoenix, AZ-
based investigation known as Operation Fast and Furious.115 ATF whistleblowers have alleged
that suspected straw purchasers were allowed to amass relatively large quantities of firearms as
part of long-term gun trafficking investigations.116 As a consequence, some of these firearms are
alleged to have “walked,” meaning that they were trafficked to gunrunners and other criminals
before ATF moved to arrest the suspects and seize all of their contraband firearms.117 Some of
these firearms were possibly smuggled into Mexico.118 Two of these firearms—AK-47 style
rifles—were reportedly found at the scene of a shootout near the U.S.-Mexico border where U.S.
Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot to death.119 Press accounts assert that ATF has
acknowledged that as many as 195 firearms that were purchased by persons under ATF
investigation as part of Operation Fast and Furious were recovered in Mexico.120 Questions,
moreover, have been raised about whether a firearm—an AK-47 style handgun—that was
reportedly used to murder U.S. ICE Special Agent Jamie Zapata and wound Special Agent Victor

113 Congressional Documents and Publications, “Rehberg Leads Bipartisan Letter to ATF Questioning New Firearm
Dealer Regulations,” Representative Dennis Rehberg (R-MT) News Release, December 23, 2010.
114 Ibid.
115 James v. Grimaldi and Sari Horwitz, “ATF Probe Strategy Is Questioned,” Washington Post, February 2, 2011, p.
A04.
116 Ibid.
117 Ibid.
118 John Solomon, David Heath, and Gordon Witkin, “ATF Let Hundreds of U.S. Weapons Fall Into Hands of
Suspected Mexican Gunrunners: Whistleblower Says Agents Strongly Objected to Risky Strategy,” Center for Public
Integrity
.
119 Ibid.
120 Kim Murphy and Ken Ellingwood, “Mexico Demands Answers on Guns,” Chicago Tribune, March 11, 2011, p. 13.
Congressional Research Service
27

Gun Control Legislation

Avila in Mexico on February 15, 2011, was initially trafficked by a subject of a Houston, TX-
based ATF Project Gunrunner investigation.121
U.S. and Mexican policymakers have expressed their dismay over the circumstances surrounding
Operation Fast and Furious.122 Senator Charles E. Grassley, the ranking minority member on the
Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote several letters to ATF and U.S. Attorney General Eric H.
Holder voicing his concerns about Operation Fast and Furious and the whistleblower allegations
that were brought to him. Attorney General Holder instructed the DOJ OIG to review ATF’s gun
trafficking investigations.123 On March 8, 2011, however, Senator Grassley called for an
independent review of the related allegations because the DOJ OIG had made recommendations
about Southwest border gun trafficking investigations in its November 2011 audit that might
possibly influence its future findings.124
On March 9, 2011, Representative Lamar Smith, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote
the Attorney General and commended him for tasking the OIG with a review of ATF’s firearms
trafficking investigatory methods. In addition, Representative Smith asked DOJ to respond to the
following questions by March 18, 2011:
• How many weapons have been allowed to pass to Mexico under the program
known as “Fast and Furious”? Is the program still active?
• Who at ATF Headquarters approved the program?
• Who in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona approved the
program? On what authority did the office approve the program?
• Did ATF or the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Phoenix coordinate the “Fast and
Furious” program with the Department of Justice? Did the department approve
the strategy?
• What changes or improvements has ATF made to its eTrace program and its
ability to use intelligence to target gun trafficking organizations in general?
• Does ATF view the “Fast and Furious” program as a success?
DOJ responded to Representative Smith to say that the matter was under investigation. On April
1, 2011, Representative Darrell Issa, chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee, issued a subpoena to DOJ and ATF for documents related to Project Gunrunner
following several unanswered requests for information related to ATF’s anti-gun trafficking
efforts on the Southwest Border.125

121 Ibid.
122 Ken Ellingwood, “Mexico: U.S. Never Said Guns Came Across; Washington Didn’t Reveal Tracked Arms Were
Passing the Border, Agency Asserts,” Los Angeles Times, March 12, 2011.
123 Pete Yost, “Justice IG to Look into Anti-Gun Efforts on Border,” Associated Press Online, March 4, 2011.
124 James V. Grimaldi, “ATF Faces Federal Review Over Tactics to Foil Gunrunning Rings,” Washington Post, March
10, 2011, p. A04.
125 Press Release, “Chairman Issa Subpoenas ATF for ‘Project Gunrunner’ Documents,” April 1, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
28


Gun Control Legislation

ATF FY2011 Appropriation and FY2012 Budget Request
The ATF enforces federal criminal law related to the manufacture, importation, and distribution of
alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. ATF works both independently and through
partnerships with industry groups; international, state and local governments; and other federal
agencies to investigate and reduce crime involving firearms and explosives, acts of arson, and
illegal trafficking of alcohol and tobacco products. From FY2001 through FY2010, Congress has
increased the direct appropriation for the ATF, from $771.0 million to $1.158 billion, a 50.2%
increase.126 Congress finalized ATF’s FY2011 appropriation in the Department of Defense and
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (H.R. 1473; P.L. 112-10). Under this act, ATF’s
FY2011 appropriation is $1.113 billion, or $45.7 million (3.95%) less than the total amount
appropriated for FY2010 ($1.158 billion).
Meanwhile, for FY2012, the Administration
Figure 1. ATF Appropriations,
has requested $1.147 billion for ATF.127 This
FY2012 Request
amount would fund 5,147 FTE positions and
5,181 permanent positions. In addition, the
Administration anticipates offsets and savings
of $27.3 million, as well as a program
increase of $1.5 million as a budget
enhancement for ATF to participate in a DOJ-
wide initiative to increase law enforcement
electronic surveillance capabilities nationally.
Reductions include $10.0 million in the
National Integrated Ballistic Information
Network (NIBIN), $4.0 million in reduced

training opportunities for state and local law
Source: ATF Congressional Budget Submission, Fiscal
enforcement , and $1.0 in the alcohol and
Year 2012.
tobacco program. According to the ATF, the
remaining $12.3 million in reductions would be sustained through administrative efficiencies and
other cost reductions.
Figure 1 shows proposed budget decision unit allocations accompanying the FY2012 budget
request. Of these programs, the firearms compliance and investigations decision unit is to be
allocated the lion’s share, 72%, of appropriated funding. The arson and explosives investigations
decision unit and the alcohol and tobacco diversion decision unit are to be allocated 26% and 2%,
respectively, of the requested appropriation.

126 For FY2010, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117), Congress provided ATF with $1.021
billion (5,025 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions and 5,101 permanent positions). This amount included $6 million
for construction. Under the FY2010 border security emergency supplemental appropriation (P.L. 111-230), Congress
also provided ATF with $37.5 million (53 FTE positions and 105 positions).
127 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Congressional Budget
Submission, Fiscal Year 2012
, February 2011, available at http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2012justification/pdf/fy12-atf-
justification.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
29

Gun Control Legislation

FISA Sunset Extensions and Firearms-Related Amendments128
On May 12, 2011, the House Judiciary Committee considered a bill, the FISA Sunsets
Reauthorization Act of 2011 (H.R. 1800), to extend certain expiring provisions of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).129 In full committee markup, Representative Mike Quigley
offered an amendment that would have allowed the Attorney General to deny a firearms transfer
to any person about whom the Attorney General gathered information during the course of a
national security investigation (under FISA), if that information generated a “reasonable belief”
that the firearm(s) might be used by the prospective transferee in terrorism-related conduct.130
This amendment was defeated by a vote of 11 to 21.131
During Senate consideration of similar bill, the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 (S. 1038
and S. 990), Senator Rand Paul offered several versions of an amendment (S.Amdt. 328, S.Amdt.
363, and S.Amdt. 373) that would have exempted certain “firearms records” from the business
records that can be secretly obtained by FBI agents during a FISA national security investigation
(section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, as amended132). On May 26, 2011, during consideration
of S. 990, the Senate tabled S.Amdt. 363 by a vote of 85 to 10. Therefore, the amendment was not
included in the enacted legislation (P.L. 112-14).
Legislative Action in the 111th and 110th Congresses
In the 111th Congress, congressional debate regarding the efficacy of gun control was colored by
the Supreme Court decisions regarding the lawful possession of firearms for self-defense. Some
Members of Congress were successful in sponsoring several firearms-related provisions that were
either reported out of full committee or passed. While some of these provisions were enacted,
others were not. These issues may re-emerge in the 112th Congress, just as the 111th Congress
revisited several issues previously considered in the 110th Congress.
Constitutionality of DC Handgun Ban and Related Legislation
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court issued its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller on the
constitutionality of a DC law that banned handguns for 32 years, among other things. Passed by
the DC Council on June 26, 1976, the DC handgun ban required that all firearms within the
District be registered and all owners be licensed, and it prohibited the registration of handguns
after September 24, 1976. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found the handgun ban to be

128 For information on FISA provisions that were due to sunset, see CRS Report R40138, Amendments to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Set to Expire May 27, 2011
, by Edward C. Liu.
129 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et al.
130 To effect such a firearms transfer denial, the subject of the FISA investigation would most likely be placed on a
NICS-accessible terrorist watch list (NCIC-KST). For further information, see the heading below, Brady Background
and Terrorist Watch List Checks.
131 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, FISA Sunsets Reauthorization Act of 2011, to accompany H.R.
1800, 112th Cong., 1st sess., May 18, 2011, p. 9.
132 P.L. 107-56; October 26, 2001; 115 Stat. 287, codified at 50 U.SC. § 1861. Section 215 requires the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court to approve all requests for such documents.
Congressional Research Service
30

Gun Control Legislation

unconstitutional because it violated an individual’s right under the Second Amendment to possess
a handgun in his home for lawful purposes such as self-defense.133
DC Council Passes Emergency Law
On July 15, 2008, the DC Council passed a temporary, emergency law that allowed residents
through a registration/certificate process to keep a handgun in their home as long as that firearm
had a capacity of fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition and was not loadable from a magazine in
the handgrip, which in effect limited legal handguns under the temporary law to revolvers as
opposed to semiautomatic pistols. The emergency law also continued to require that handguns be
kept unloaded and disassembled, or trigger locked, unless an attack in a home was imminent or
underway. Pro-gun groups immediately criticized the council’s emergency law for not being in
the “spirit” of the Supreme Court’s decision because it continued to ban semiautomatic pistols
and did not fully roll back the trigger lock requirement. Since the initial emergency law was
passed, the DC Council has passed several other pieces of similar temporary, emergency laws
related to the Heller decision. These laws include new firearms-related provisions that were also
included in permanent legislation passed by the DC Council that is described below.
Legislation Related to DC Gun Laws134
Several Members of Congress were dissatisfied with the DC Council’s temporary law. On July
24, 2008, Representative Mike Ross filed a motion to discharge the Rules Committee from
consideration of H.Res. 1331, a resolution that would have provided for the consideration of a bill
to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia (H.R. 1399).135 This bill was
similar to previous bills introduced by Representative Mark Souder and Senators Kay Bailey
Hutchison and Orrin Hatch in previous congresses. Representative Ross introduced H.R. 1399 in
the 110th Congress for himself and Representative Souder on March 27, 2007, and Senator
Hutchison introduced a companion measure (S. 1001) on March 28, 2007.
In the 110th Congress, Representative Travis Childers introduced a similar bill (H.R. 6691) on
July 31, 2008. All three bills would have amended the DC Code to
• limit the Council’s authority to regulate firearms;
• remove semiautomatic firearms 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;

133 For legal analysis, see CRS Report R41750, The Second Amendment: An Overview of District of Columbia v. Heller
and McDonald v. City of Chicago
, by Vivian S. Chu.
134 Foreshadowing the contentiousness of the DC gun ban issue, Representative Lamar Smith had previously scuttled
the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007 (H.R. 1433) on March 22, 2007, 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. Rather than vote on the motion, debate on H.R. 1433 was postponed
indefinitely. 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.
135 Under the Home Rule Act (P.L. 93-198), Congress has reserved for itself the authority to legislate for the District.
Congressional Research Service
31

Gun Control Legislation

• 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 firearms registration requirements generally; and
• repeal certain criminal penalties for possessing or carrying unregistered firearms.
Representatives John Dingell, John Tanner, and Mike Ross reportedly negotiated an agreement
with the House leadership to consider H.R. 6691 in early September.136 H.R. 6691 included
language that stated as a congressional finding that DC officials “have indicated their intention to
continue to unduly restrict lawful firearm possession and use by citizens of the District.” H.R.
6691 also included a provision that would have allowed DC residents to purchase firearms from
federally licensed gun dealers in Virginia and Maryland.
On September 9, 2008, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing
on the possible effects H.R. 6691 might have on the District. On the same day, Representative
Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced H.R. 6842, a bill that would have required the DC mayor and
Council to ensure that regulations were promulgated that would have been consistent with the
Heller decision. On September 15, 2008, the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee reported H.R. 6842 (H.Rept. 110-843). On September 17, 2008, however, the House
amended H.R. 6842 with the text of H.R. 6691 and passed the Childers’ bill.
DC Council Passes Permanent Legislation
On December 16, 2008, the DC Council passed the Firearms Control Amendment Act of 2008
(FCAA; B17-0843) and the Inoperable Pistol Amendment Act of 2008 (IPAA; B17-0593).137
Mayor Adrian Fenty signed the FCAA into law on January 28, 2009 (L17-0372). This bill was
transmitted to Congress on February 10, 2009. From the day of transmittal, Congress had 30
legislative days to review this bill under the DC Home Rule Act (according to the District of
Columbia). Among other things, this law amends the DC Code to
• adopt the federal definition of “machine gun,” which does not include
semiautomatic pistols;
• prohibit the possession and registration of “assault weapons” and rifles capable
of firing .50 caliber Browning Machine Gun (BMG) rounds; and
• require that all firearms made after January 1, 2011, be microstamped.138
Many provisions of this law, including the assault weapons ban and the microstamping
provisions, were modeled after California state law.

136 Keith Perine and Seth Stern, “House Democrats Plan Vote To Roll Back D.C. Gun Laws,” CQ Today Online News,
August 5, 2008.
137 For further information on these bills, as well as the Ensign amendment, see CRS Report R40474, DC Gun Laws
and Proposed Amendments
, by Vivian S. Chu.
138 Microstamping is an emerging technology by which a firearm’s serial number is engraved microscopically with a
laser onto the breech face or firing pin of a firearm. When the firearm is fired, the serial number is “stamped” upon the
cartridge casing. If a microstamped cartridge is subsequently recovered at a crime scene, the firearm’s serial number
could potentially yield additional leads for law enforcement.
Congressional Research Service
32

Gun Control Legislation

Mayor Fenty signed IPAA into law on January 16, 2009 (L17-0388). It was transmitted to
Congress on February 4, 2009. Because the bill includes penalty provisions, Congress had 60
legislative days to review this bill under the DC Home Rule Act. Among other things, this
permanent legislation amends the DC Code to
• criminalize the possession of inoperable firearms;
• criminalize the discharge of firearms;
• prohibit carrying a rifle or shotgun;
• allow for the transportation of firearms under the same conditions as permitted
under federal law; and
• change the waiting period to purchase a firearm from 48 hours to 10 days.
DC Voting Rights and Gun Laws in the 111th Congress
On February 26, 2009, Senator John Ensign successfully amended (S.Amdt. 576) the District of
Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 (S. 160) by a yea-nay vote of 62-36 (Record Vote
Number 72) with language that would have overturned certain DC guns laws and prevent the
District from legislating in these areas in the future. The Senate passed this bill on the same day
by a yea-nay vote of 61-37 (Record Vote Number 73).139 This bill was tabled while the House
leadership attempted to negotiate an end to the impasse over the DC gun laws and bring its
version of the DC voting rights bill (H.R. 157) to the floor.140 In April 2010, efforts were made to
revive the voting rights bill, but some Members prepared amendments to overturn the city’s gun
laws. Consequently, Members managing the DC voting rights bill postponed further consideration
rather than risk passage of amendments that would overturn the city’s gun laws.141 Senator John
McCain and Representative Travis Childers introduced their amendments as stand-alone bills, the
Second Amendment Enforcement Act (S. 3265/H.R. 5162). In the 112th Congress, Representative
Mike Ross has introduced a proposal to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of
Columbia (H.R. 645).
Constitutionality of the Chicago Handgun Ban
On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago and
found that the individual right to lawfully possess a firearm for the purposes of self-defense under
the Second Amendment applied to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.142 Although
the McDonald decision arguably nullified the Chicago handgun ban by limiting a state, city, or
local government’s ability to prohibit handguns outright, it does not delineate what would
constitute permissible gun control laws under the Second Amendment. Indeed, the Supreme Court
remanded the Chicago handgun ban back to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing.
Consequently, the delineation of permissible gun laws will likely be developed in future cases.

139 For more information, see CRS Report R40474, DC Gun Laws and Proposed Amendments, by Vivian S. Chu.
140 Edward Epstein and Michael Teitelbaum, “Hoyer Expresses Optimism About Chance D.C. Vote Bill Will Come to
Floor,” CQ Today, March 24, 2009.
141 Ann E. Marimow and Ben Pershing, “District Voting Rights Scuttled: ‘The Price Was Too High’ Amendment
Would Have Repealed D.C. Gun Laws,” Washington Post, April 21, 2010, p. B01.
142 For legal analysis, see CRS Report R41750, The Second Amendment: An Overview of District of Columbia v. Heller
and McDonald v. City of Chicago
, by Vivian S. Chu.
Congressional Research Service
33

Gun Control Legislation

Nevertheless, the City of Chicago has reportedly adopted handgun regulations that are similar to
those adopted by the District of Columbia. These regulations allow eligible residents to register
one operable handgun per household, but in most cases that handgun must be locked and rendered
inoperable, and it cannot be carried outside of the home.143
Public Lands and Firearms Possession and Use
In the 111th Congress, Senator Tom Coburn successfully amended the Credit CARD Act of 2009
(H.R. 627) with a provision (S.Amdt. 1067) that allows private persons to carry firearms in
national parks and wildlife refuges (effective February 22, 2010). This amendment passed by a
vote of 67 to 29 (Record Vote Number 188) on May 12, 2009. Under H.Res. 456, the House voted
on the Coburn amendment as a separate measure and passed it by a vote of 279 to 147. President
Barack Obama signed H.R. 627 into law on May 22, 2009 (P.L. 111-24).
Previously, in the 110th Congress during consideration of a public land bill (S. 2483), Senator
Coburn offered but later withdrew an amendment (S.Amdt. 3967) that would have overturned
federal regulations that prohibit visitors to parks and wildlife refuges managed by the National
Park Service (NPS)144 and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)145 from possessing operable and
loaded firearms. While these regulations were last revised substantively in 1981 and 1983, similar
firearms restrictions were promulgated in the 1930s in an effort to curb poaching and other illegal
activities. There are exceptions for hunting and marksmanship under current law. Since the 1980s,
however, many states have passed laws that allow persons to carry concealed handguns for
personal protection. Although 48 states have “concealed carry” laws, only 24 of those states
reportedly allow concealed handguns to be carried in state parks.146
On April 30, 2008, in part at the urging of some Members of Congress, the Department of the
Interior (DOI) published proposed regulations that would authorize the possession of loaded and
concealed firearms, as long as carrying those firearms in that fashion would be legal under the
laws of the states where the public lands are located.147 While the initial comment period was
scheduled to end on June 30, 2008, it was extended until August 8, 2008.148 DOI reported
receiving approximately 90,000 comments on those proposed regulations. Final regulations were
issued on December 10, 2008.149 Those regulations took effect on January 9, 2009. However, on
March 19, a U.S. District Judge issued a preliminary injunction on the regulations in a lawsuit
brought by three groups: the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks
Conservation Association, and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.150 On March 20,
the NRA filed a notice to appeal in Federal District Court in opposition to the preliminary
injunction.

143 Dave Workman, “Chicago Adopts New Gun Regs, Lawsuit Filed,” New Gun Week, August 1, 2010, p. 1.
144 36 C.F.R. Part 2.
145 50 C.F.R. Part 27.
146 Warren Richey, “Bid to Allow Guns in National Parks,” Christian Science Monitor, August 19, 2008, p. 3.
147 73 Federal Register 23388.
148 73 Federal Register 39272.
149 Department of the Interior, National Park Service, “General Regulations for Areas Administered by the National
Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service,” 73 Federal Register 74966-74972, December 10, 2008.
150 Juliet Eilperin and Del Quentin Wilber, “Judge Blocks Rule Permitting Concealed Guns in U.S. Parks,” Washington
Post
, March 20, 2009, p. A09.
Congressional Research Service
34

Gun Control Legislation

Senator Coburn also introduced a bill, the Protecting Americans from Violent Crime Act of 2008
(S. 2619), that was very similar to his proposed amendment and DOI’s proposed regulations.
Supporters of those proposals pointed to a reported rise in illegal activities and violent crime on
public lands. Opponents argued that the risk of a violent crime encounter in National Parks and
Wildlife Refuges was negligible.151 They further argued that allowing others to carry loaded and
concealed handguns on their person would make them less safe. In the 111th Congress, similar
measures were introduced by Representative Doc Hastings and Senator Mike Crapo (H.R.
1684/S. 816).
Amtrak Passengers and Firearms
On September 16, 2010, Senator Roger Wicker amended the FY2010 Transportation-HUD
Appropriations bill (H.R. 3288) with language to authorize private persons to carry firearms and
ammunition in their checked luggage on Amtrak trains. The Wicker amendment (S.Amdt. 2366)
passed by a yea-nay vote, 68-30 (Record Vote Number 279). On September 17, 2009, the Senate
passed this bill. Later, H.R. 3288 became the vehicle for the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2010. Conferees retained the Wicker language in the conference agreement (H.Rept. 111-366),
and the President signed H.R. 3288 into law (P.L. 111-117) on December 16, 2009. Section 159 of
the act requires Amtrak, with the Transportation Security Administration, to report to Congress
(within six months of enactment—June 16, 2010) on proposed guidance and procedures to
implement a “checked firearms program.” The reported guidance and procedures are to be
implemented within one year of enactment. The act further requires that checked firearms be
placed in a locked, hard-sided container, and that passengers planning to carry firearms in their
luggage declare their intentions to Amtrak at the time they make their reservations or within 24
hours of departure. Similar requirements are set out for placing ammunition in checked luggage.
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Amendments
The 111th Congress passed amendments to clarify and expand eligibility under the Law
Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA; P.L. 108-277). This law authorizes certain qualified
active-duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms across state lines,
while off duty. Senator Leahy, the Judiciary Committee Chair, introduced the amendments as a
stand-alone bill (S. 1132). In the House, Representative J. Randy Forbes introduced a similar
measure (H.R. 3752). The Senate Judiciary Committee approved S. 1132 on March 11, 2010, and
the Senate passed the bill on May 13, 2010. The Senate Judiciary Committee filed a report on this
bill on July 27, 2010 (S.Rept. 111-233). The House passed S. 1132 on September 29, 2010. The
President signed S. 1132 into law on October 12, 2010 (P.L. 111-272). The 2010 LEOSA
amendments (1) clarify that certain Amtrak and executive branch law enforcement officers are
eligible for concealed carry privileges under P.L. 108-277, (2) reduce the length of service
criterion for eligibility under that law from 15 to 10 years, and (3) clarify other provisions of the
law related to certification and credentialing.

151 CRS compilation of FBI Uniform Crime Reports data show that from 2002 through 2006, there were 15 murders
and non-negligent homicides reported by the FWS and 48 reported by the NPS. However, FWS reports all crimes
encountered by its agents, whether or not they occurred on refuge land. It is difficult to determine how many of the 15
murders occurred on refuges.
Congressional Research Service
35

Gun Control Legislation

Previously, in the 110th Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported a similar bill (S. 376;
S.Rept. 110-150) on September 5, 2007. This bill was also introduced by Senator Leahy.
Representative Forbes introduced a similar bill (H.R. 2726). The language of S. 376 was
incorporated into S. 2084, the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007,
when that bill was reported on September 21, 2007 (S.Rept. 110-183). In the 109th Congress, the
Senate amended H.R. 1751, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2006, with similar LEOSA
provisions and passed that measure.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Firearms
The 111th Congress included language in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA;
P.L. 111-148) that prohibits data collection on gun ownership or higher premiums for gun owners
under wellness program provisions. The catalyst for this language was an “action alert” that Gun
Owners of America (GOA) sent out, urging its membership to oppose a Senate health care reform
proposal released on November 18, 2009. The GOA argued that the Senate proposal, along with
other enacted provisions of law, would have required doctors to provide “gun-related health data”
to a computerized national health information network.152 With such information, the GOA
maintained that the federal government would deny individuals the ability to obtain a firearm or
firearms permit. Of particular concern for the GOA were mental health records. Another concern
raised by the GOA was the possibility that insurance providers under the Senate proposal would
have been required or prompted to raise premiums for persons who exhibited arguably “unhealthy
behaviors,” such as firearms ownership.
Although the Senate proposal included provisions to amend the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) that addressed electronic data transaction standards for national
health information sharing purposes to facilitate eligibility determinations and health care plan
enrollments, it did not include any provisions that would have directly required the national
collection of “gun-related health data.” Without a clear directive, it is debatable whether the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would have undertaken such data collection on
firearms ownership and possession given other provisions in current law, albeit in different
statutory contexts, that prohibit the establishment of a registry of privately held firearms or
firearms owners.153 Dr. David Blumenthal, the National Coordinator for Health Information
Technology at HHS, said that the current system does not include a database into which such
information could be fed, nor are there plans to create one.154 Blumenthal added that “we don’t
want to do it and it’s not authorized.”155
Nor did the Senate proposal include any provisions that would have required or prompted
insurance providers to raise premiums on gun owners. On the other hand, the Senate legislation
did include provisions that would have codified and amended HIPAA wellness program
provisions that would have addressed employer-based incentives for healthy behavior to reduce

152 Shalaigh Murray, “Public Option at Center of Debate; Democratic Dissent Reid Must Find Compromise to Pass
Health-Care Bill,” Washington Post, November 23, 2009, p. A01.
153 In the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (P.L. 103-159, November 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1542), Congress
included a provision (§ 103(i)) that prohibits any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States from
establishing a registration system with respect to firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions/dispositions that
would use records generated by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
154 Peter Overby, “A Vote For Health Care, A Vote Against Gun Rights?,” National Public Radio, November 25, 2009.
155 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
36

Gun Control Legislation

health care costs. Arguably, these provisions would not have precluded the Secretary of Health
and Human Services from promulgating regulations that addressed risks associated with firearms
ownership, possession, use, and storage. However, such regulations, if proposed, would have
likely been tested in administrative and judicial review as to their impact on Second Amendment
rights. Nonetheless, Senate legislators included new language in their Patient Protection and
Affordable Care proposal, which the Senate passed as an amendment to H.R. 3590 on December
24, 2009.156
The Senate language, which was included in P.L. 111-148, prohibits any wellness and health
promotion activity sponsored under the act’s HIPAA amendments from requiring the disclosure or
collection of any information about the presence or storage of a lawfully possessed firearm or
ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual, or the lawful use, possession, or
storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual. The language also states that nothing in the
bill would be construed to authorize any data collection on the lawful ownership, possession, use,
or storage of firearms or ammunition, or to maintain records on individual ownership or
possession of a firearm or ammunition. In addition, with regard to any health insurance to be
provided under the act, this provision prohibits providers from increasing premium rates; denying
coverage; or reducing or withholding discounts, rebates, or rewards for participation in a wellness
program because of an individual’s lawful ownership, possession, use, or storage of a firearm or
ammunition. Finally, under the data collection activities authorized under the act, the language
states that no individual would be required to disclose any information relating to the lawful
ownership, possession, use, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.
NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007157
In the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy,158 the 110th Congress passed legislation to improve
firearms-related background checks. The Senate amended and passed the NICS Improvement
Amendments Act of 2007 (H.R. 2640) following lengthy negotiations, as did the House, on
December 19, 2007, clearing that bill for the President’s signature. President Bush signed the bill
into law on January 8, 2008 (P.L. 110-180). This law amends and strengthens a provision of the
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act; P.L. 103-159) that requires 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 databases queried by
NICS.
As described above, the act also includes provisions designed to encourage states, tribes, and
territories (states) to make available to the Attorney General certain records related to persons
who are disqualified from acquiring a firearm, particularly records related to domestic violence
misdemeanor convictions and restraining orders, as well as mental health adjudications. To
accomplish this, the act establishes a framework of incentives and disincentives, whereby the
Attorney General is authorized to either waive a grant match requirement or reduce a law

156 See proposed section 2717 as included in section 1001 and amended by section 10101 in the Senate-passed H.R.
3590.
157 As described in greater detail above, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is
administered by the FBI, so that federally licensed gun dealers can process a background check to determine a
customer’s eligibility to possess a firearm before proceeding with a transaction.
158 On April 16, 2007, a student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University shot 32 people to death and
wounded many others.
Congressional Research Service
37

Gun Control Legislation

enforcement assistance grant depending upon a state’s compliance with the act’s goals of bringing
firearms-related disqualifying records online.
The original proposal (H.R. 2640) was introduced by Representative McCarthy and co-sponsored
by Representative John Dingell. As passed by the House by a voice vote on June 13, 2007, H.R.
2640 reportedly reflected a compromise between groups favoring and opposing greater gun
control.159 The Senate Judiciary Committee approved similar, but not identical, NICS
improvement amendments as part of the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act
of 2004 on August 2, 2007, and reported this bill on September 21, 2007 (S. 2084; S.Rept. 110-
183). The Senate Judiciary Committee included five other measures in S. 2084. With some
modification, those measures included the School Safety Improvements Act (S. 1217), the Equity
in Law Enforcement Act (S. 1448), the PRECAUTION Act (S. 1521), the Terrorist Hoax
Improvements Act (S. 735), and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007 (LEOSA; S.
376). Support for the NICS improvement and the LEOSA amendments (described below) in S.
2084 was reportedly divided and uneven, however.160 Citing privacy and cost issues related to the
NICS amendments, Senator Coburn reportedly placed a hold on that legislation.161
In addition, some opposition to NICS improvement amendments had coalesced around an
assertion made by Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America that, under these amendments, any
veteran who was or had been diagnosed with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)162 and was
found to be a “danger to himself or others would have his gun rights taken away ... forever.”163
Under current law, however, any veteran or other VA beneficiary who is adjudicated or
determined to be a mental defective, because he poses a danger to himself or others, or is
incapable of conducting his day-to-day affairs, is ineligible to possess a firearm. A diagnosis of
PTSD in and of itself is not a disqualifying factor for the purposes of gun control under the NICS
improvement amendments or previous law. Under the enacted NICS improvement amendments,
VA beneficiaries who have been determined to be mental defectives could appeal for
administrative relief and possibly have their gun rights restored if they could demonstrate that
they were no longer afflicted by a disqualifying condition.
Veterans, Mental Incompetency, and Firearms Eligibility
In the 110th Congress, Senator Burr successfully amended the Veterans’ Medical Personnel
Recruitment and Retention Act of 2008 (S. 2969) in full committee markup on June 26, 2008.
The language of the Burr amendment would have provided that “a veteran, surviving spouse, or
child who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended

159 Jonathan Weisman, “Democrats, NRA Reach Deal on Background-Check Bill,” Washington Post, June 10, 2007, p.
A02.
160 David Rogers, “Democrats Stall on Gun-Records Bill: Despite Support, Background-Check Measure Staggers in
Senate Amid Infighting,” Wall Street Journal, September 21, 2007, p. A6.
161 Seth Stern, “Coburn Blocks Gun Background-Check Bill, Citing Concerns About Privacy, Spending,” CQ Today,
September 25, 2007.
162 PTSD is an anxiety disorder that can occur after one has been through a traumatic event. Symptoms may manifest
soon after the trauma, or may be delayed. For further information, see U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs, National
Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Fact Sheet, available at
http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/ncdocs/fact_shts/fs_what_is_ptsd.html.
163 Larry Pratt, “Veterans Disarmament Act To Bar Vets From Owning Guns,” September 23, 2007, available at
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/230907Disarmament.htm.
Congressional Research Service
38

Gun Control Legislation

loss of consciousness shall not be considered adjudicated as a mental defective” for purposes of
the Gun Control Act, “without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial
authority of competent jurisdiction that such veteran, surviving spouse, or child is a danger to him
or herself or others.” Senator Burr introduced a bill, the Veterans’ 2nd Amendment Protection Act
(S. 3167), that would have achieved the same ends as his amendment to S. 2969.
In the 111th Congress, Senator Burr reintroduced his bill as S. 669, and the Senate Committee on
Veterans’ Affairs reported this bill (S.Rept. 111-27) on June 16, 2009. Representative Jerry Moran
introduced a similar bill (H.R. 2547). The House Veterans’ Affairs Committee considered and
approved a similar provision that Representative John Boozman offered as an amendment to a
draft bill in full committee markup on September 15, 2010. This provision was included in the
reported version of the bill (H.R. 6132; H.Rept. 111-630). However, when the House considered
H.R. 6132 under suspension of the rules, an amended version of H.R. 6132 was called up that did
not include the Boozman provision.
Mental Defective Adjudications
Under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, the term “adjudicated as a mental defective” includes a determination
by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked
subnormal intelligence or a mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease, (1) is a danger to
himself or others, or (2) lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs. The term also
includes (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case and (2) those persons found
incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant
to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 850a, 876(b).
This definition of “mental defective” was promulgated by the ATF in a final rule published on
June 27, 1997.164 In the final rule, the ATF noted that the VA had commented on the “proposed
rulemaking” and had correctly interpreted that “adjudicated as a mental defective” includes a
person who is found to be “mentally incompetent” by the Veterans’ Benefit Administration
(VBA). Under veterans law, an individual is considered “mentally incompetent” if he or she lacks
the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs for reasons related to injury or
disease (under 38 CFR § 3.353).165 In a proposed rulemaking, the ATF opined that the inclusion
of “mentally incompetent” in the definition of “mental defective” was wholly consistent with the
legislative history of the 1968 Gun Control Act.166 Reportedly, the VA could have been the only
federal agency that had promulgated a definition like “mentally incompetent” that overlapped
with the term “mental defective.”167
VA Referrals to the FBI
In November 1998, the VBA provided the FBI with disqualifying records on 88,898 VA
beneficiaries, whom VA rating specialists had determined to be “mentally incompetent” based on

164 Federal Register, vol. 62, no. 124, June 27, 1997, p. 34634.
165 Federal Register, vol. 61, no. 174, September 6, 1996, p. 47095.
166 Ibid.
167 Personal communication with Compensation and Pension Program staff, Department of Veterans’ Affairs, July 9,
2008.
Congressional Research Service
39

Gun Control Legislation

medical evidence that they were incapable of managing their own affairs.168 Thus, a fiduciary (or
designated payee) was appointed for them. During the determination process, beneficiaries were
notified that the VA was proposing to rate them “mentally incompetent,” and they were able to
submit evidence to the contrary if they wished.169 This determination process is still followed
today at the VA.170
The Veterans’ Medical Administration has not submitted any disqualifying records on VA
beneficiaries to the FBI for inclusion in NICS for any medical/psychiatric reason (like PTSD),
unless those veterans had been involuntarily committed under a state court order to a VA medical
facility because they posed a danger to themselves or others. In those cases, the state in which the
court resides would submit the disqualifying record to the FBI, if such a submission would be
appropriate and permissible under state law.171
Nevertheless, the decision by the VA to submit VBA records on “mentally incompetent” veterans
to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS mental defective file generated some degree of controversy
in 1999 and 2000.172 Critics of this policy underscored that veterans routinely consented to
“mentally incompetent” determinations so that a fiduciary (designated payee) could be appointed
for them. Those critics contended that to take away a veteran’s Second Amendment rights without
his foreknowledge was improper. They also pointed out that no other federal agencies were
providing similar disqualifying records to the FBI. This controversy subsided, but it re-emerged
when Congress considered the NICS improvement amendments (described above). Also, as of
April 30, 2008, VA records made up about one-fifth (or 21.0%) of the 552,800 federal and state
records in the NICS mental defective file.
Public Housing and Firearms Possession and Use
In the 110th Congress, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6216) on July 9, 2008, that would have made
changes related to the administration of the public housing program administered by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through local public housing authorities
(PHAs). The bill includes a provision that would have prohibited the HUD Secretary from
accepting as reasonable any management or related fees charged by a PHA for enforcing any
provision of a lease agreement that requires tenants to register firearms that are otherwise legally
possessed, or that prohibits their possession outright. On the other hand, the bill would have
allowed PHAs to terminate the lease of any tenant who was found to be illegally using a firearm.
The gun-related provision in H.R. 6216 reportedly reflected a compromise.173 The original
language restricting fees for enforcing gun restrictions was included in a motion to recommit
offered during floor debate on a similar public housing bill (H.R. 3521). That bill was not

168 Ibid.
169 Ibid.
170 Ibid.
171 For further information on the treatment of mental illness and substance abuse for the purposes of gun control, see
Donna M. Norris, M.D., et al., “Firearm Laws, Patients, and the Roles of Psychiatrists,” American Journal of
Psychiatry
, August 2006, pp. 1392-1396.
172 John Dougherty, “VA Give FBI Health Secrets: Veterans’ Records Could Block Firearms Purchases,” WorldNet
Daily.com
, June 22, 2000; and “VA Defends Vets’ Records Transfers to NICS System,” New Gun Week, vol. 35, issue
1650, July 10, 2000, p. 1.
173 Seth Stern, “House to Try Again on Public Housing Bill,” CQ Today, July 8, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
40

Gun Control Legislation

approved by the House, but was sent back to the House Financial Services Committee for further
consideration. A new version of the public housing bill (H.R. 5829) was introduced that included
language from the motion to recommit, but it did not include the lease termination proviso, and
the bill received no further consideration.
In the 111th Congress, the Financial Services Committee reported the Section 8 Voucher Reform
Act of 2009 (H.R. 3045; H.Rept. 111-277) on July 23, 2009. In committee markup,
Representative Price successfully amended the bill on July 9, 2009, with language that would
have prevented authorities from prohibiting firearms in public housing. The committee approved
another housing bill that included a similar provision (H.R. 4868) on July 27, 2010.
Concealed Carry and Reciprocity
On July 22, 2009, the Senate considered an amendment (S.Amdt. 1618) offered by Senator Thune
to the FY2010 Defense Authorization Act (S. 1390) that would have arguably provided for
national reciprocity between states regarding the concealed carry of firearms. By agreement, the
amendment needed 60 votes to pass, but it was narrowly defeated by a recorded vote, 58-39.
Senator Thune introduced a similar bill, the Respecting States Rights and Concealed Carry
Reciprocity Act of 2009 (S. 845).
As background, the issue of concealed carry under state law can be divided into four categories:
(1) no permit required, (2) mandatory or “shall issue,” (3) discretionary or “may issue,” and (4)
no concealed carry permitted. In Alaska and Vermont, state law allows concealed carry without a
permit (no permit required). Thirty-five states have “shall issue” laws, in that the state issues the
permit as long as the applicant meets the eligibility criteria.174 Eleven states are “may issue”
states, in that the state has discretion in whether to issue the permit.175 Wisconsin and Illinois state
laws prohibit the concealed carry of firearms by civilians under any circumstances.
Many states with concealed carry laws have extended concealed carry privileges, or reciprocity,
to the residents of other states. According to the NRA, however, those concealed carry laws are
often very technical and subject to change. Moreover, there are no national eligibility criteria, or
training standards regarding concealed carry. Although the Thune amendment did not address the
issue of national standards, it arguably would have required “may issue” states to honor the
permits issued by “shall issue” states. By extension, it would also have required “shall issue” and
“may issue” states to honor the eligibility of all residents of Alaska and Vermont to carry
concealed firearms in their states, as long as those persons were not otherwise prohibited from
possessing firearms.

174 “Shall issue” states include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
175 “May issue” states include Alabama, Connecticut, and Iowa. The following states are restrictive may issue states:
California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.
Congressional Research Service
41

Gun Control Legislation

Bankruptcy and Firearms
Representative John A. Boccieri and Senator Leahy introduced the Protecting Gun Owners in
Bankruptcy Act of 2010 (H.R. 5827/S. 3654). This proposal would have amended federal
bankruptcy law to permit an individual to exempt from the property of his estate a single rifle,
shotgun, or pistol, or any combination thereof, as long as the total value of the exemption did not
exceed $3,000. On July 28, 2010, the House passed H.R. 5827 by a roll call vote (two-thirds
required) of 307-113 (Roll no. 479). In the 112th Congress, Representative Tim Griffin has
introduced a similar measure (H.R. 1181).
ATF Appropriations and Southwest Border Gun Trafficking
The 111th Congress considered legislation to either fund ATF or authorize increased
appropriations for the agency. The ATF enforces federal criminal law related to the manufacture,
importation, and distribution of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. ATF works both
independently and through partnerships with industry groups; international, state, and local
governments; and other federal agencies to investigate and reduce crime involving firearms and
explosives, acts of arson, and illegal trafficking of alcohol and tobacco products.
ATF Appropriations for FY2011176
The President’s FY2011 budget request includes $1.163 billion for ATF, an increase of $42.2
million, or 3.8%, compared to the FY2010-enacted appropriation. Proposed increases (over base)
include $11.8 million for Project Gunrunner177 and $1.2 million for Emergency Support Function
#13 (ESF-13), the Public Safety and Security Annex to the National Response Framework
(NRF).178 The NRF sets broad responsibilities and lines of authority for federal agencies in the
event of a national emergency or major disaster. Under the NRF, the Attorney General is
responsible for ESF-13, which entails all hazards law enforcement planning and coordination for
the entire United States and its territories. The Attorney General, in turn, has delegated his
responsibility for ESF-13’s implementation to the ATF. On July 22, 2010, the Senate
Appropriations Committee reported an FY2011 CJS appropriations bill (S. 3636; S.Rept. 111-
229). This measure would provide ATF with $1.163 billion for FY2011, matching the
Administration’s request. On July 22, 2010, the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up and
reported the FY2011 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations bill
(S. 3636). The Senate bill would match the Administration’s request. In the absence of an enacted
CJS appropriations bill, Congress has passed continuing resolutions.179 As described above, the
112th Congress has finalized the FY2011 ATF appropriation, providing the agency with $1.113
billion.

176 For further information, see CRS Report R41206, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF):
Budget and Operations for FY2011
, by William J. Krouse.
177 For further information on Operation Gunrunner, see CRS Report R40733, Gun Trafficking and the Southwest
Border
, by Vivian S. Chu and William J. Krouse.
178 For more information, see CRS Report RL34758, The National Response Framework: Overview and Possible
Issues for Congress
, by Bruce R. Lindsay.
179 For further information, see CRS Report RL30343, Continuing Resolutions: Latest Action and Brief Overview of
Recent Practices
, by Sandy Streeter.
Congressional Research Service
42

Gun Control Legislation

ATF Appropriations for FY2010180
For FY2010, the Administration requested $1.121 billion and 5,025 full-time equivalent (FTE)
positions for ATF, or $66.6 million and 68 FTE positions more than the amounts appropriated for
FY2009 ($1.054 billion and 4,957). Of the difference, $23.6 million and 22 FTE positions were
base adjustments. For Southwest border enforcement, the FY2010 request included a budget
enhancement of $18 million to support Project Gunrunner and $25 million for the new National
Center for Explosives Training and Research Center (NCETR). Compared to the enacted FY2009
level of funding, the FY2010 request would have provided a 4.9% increase.
For ATF, Congress appropriated $1.121 billion in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
(H.R. 3288). The President signed this bill into law on December 16, 2009 (P.L. 111-117).181 The
act provided an amount that was equal to the Administration’s request. This amount was $52.5
million more than the final FY2009-enacted amount, or an increase of 4.9%. Conference report
language (H.Rept. 111-366) indicated that the act included $18 million for Project Gunrunner, the
same amount requested by the Administration. In addition, the act also included $10 million to
increase the Violent Crime Impact Team program, $6 million for construction (phase two) of the
NCETR, and $1.5 million to complete ATF headquarters construction projects.
On July 28, 2010, the House passed an FY2010 supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 5875) that
included $39.1 million for ATF to increase Southwest border gun trafficking investigations. On
August 5, 2010, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 5875, which included $37.5 million for
ATF. On August 9, the House introduced a new border security supplemental bill (H.R. 6080),
which was subsequently passed by the House on August 10. This bill contained language
identical to Senate-passed H.R. 5875. Reportedly, the House took up the bill with a new number
to avoid a dispute related to its constitutional obligation to originate all revenue measures.182 This
dispute arose with the addition of funding provisions in Senate-passed H.R. 5875 that were not
included in the House-passed version. On August 12, the Senate passed H.R. 6080. On August 13,
the President signed H.R. 6080 into law (P.L. 111-230). It provides ATF with an additional $37.5
million for Project Gunrunner.
Southwest Border Gun Trafficking
On the Southwest border with Mexico, firearms violence has spiked sharply in recent years as
drug trafficking organizations have reportedly vied for control of key smuggling corridors into the
United States. In March 2008, President Felipe Calderón called on the United States to increase
its efforts to suppress gun trafficking from the United States into Mexico. In the 110th Congress,
the House passed a bill (H.R. 6028) that would authorize a total of $73.5 million to be
appropriated over three years, for FY2008 through FY2010, to increase ATF resources dedicated
to stemming illegal gun trafficking into Mexico as part of the Mérida Initiative.183 Similar

180 For further information, see CRS Report RL34514, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(ATF): Budget and Operations for FY2008, FY2009, and FY2010
, by William J. Krouse.
181 The conference report on the bill includes provisions for six of the seven FY2010 appropriations: Transportation-
HUD; Commerce-Justice-Science; Financial Services; Labor-HHS; Military Construction-VA; and State-Foreign
Operations. The Defense appropriations bill, H.R. 3326, was passed separately.
182 Theo Emery and Edward Epstein, “Border Security Bill Passes in House,” CQ Today, August 10, 2010, online
edition.
183 For further information, see CRS Report RS22837, Mérida Initiative: U.S. Anticrime and Counterdrug Assistance
for Mexico and Central America
, by Clare Ribando Seelke.
Congressional Research Service
43

Gun Control Legislation

authorizations were included in S. 2867, H.R. 5863, and H.R. 5869. In the 111th Congress, similar
authorizations were included in several bills (S. 205, H.R. 495, H.R. 1448, and H.R. 1867).
Tiahrt Amendment and Firearms Trace Data Limitations
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 modified, those restrictions were included in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199). Amended to the ATF appropriations every year since
(FY2005-FY2010) and with language making them permanent law, the Tiahrt restrictions
• prohibit the use of any funding appropriated for ATF to disclose firearms trace or
multiple handgun sales report data for any purpose other than supporting “bona
fide” criminal investigation or agency licensing proceedings,
• prohibit 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
• require the next-day destruction of approved Brady background check records.
Of these limitations, the first, dealing with disclosure of firearms trace or multiple handgun sales
report data, probably was and is the most contentious. A coalition of U.S. mayors, including New
York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, maintain that they should have access to such data in order
to identify out-of-state federally licensed gun dealers who wittingly or unwittingly sell large
numbers of firearms to illegal gun traffickers.
For FY2008, the Tiahrt limitation on firearms trace and multiple handgun sales report data was
the source of debate when the Senate CJS Appropriations Subcommittee did not include this
limitation in its draft bill. Senator Richard Shelby amended the FY2008 CJS appropriations bill
(which became S. 1745) with similar, but modified, limitations in full committee markup. Similar
language was included in the House-passed CJS appropriations bill (H.R. 3093), and was
included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-161; H.R. 2764), into which the
CJS appropriations were folded.184 The modified FY2008 limitation included new language that
authorizes ATF to
• share firearms trace data with tribal and foreign law enforcement agencies and
federal agencies for national intelligence purposes;
• share firearms trace data with law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to
exchange among themselves; and
• release aggregate statistics on firearms traffickers and trafficking channels, or
firearms misuse, felons, and trafficking investigations.
The FY2008 limitation, however, continued to prohibit the release of firearms trace data for the
purposes of suing gun manufacturers and dealers. Moreover, the limitation includes the phrase “in
fiscal year 2008 and thereafter,” which makes the limitation permanent law according to the

184 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.
Congressional Research Service
44

Gun Control Legislation

Government Accountability Office (GAO).185 Despite the permanency of these limitations,
Congress has modified their language and included them in the FY2009 and FY2010 Commerce,
Justice, Science (CJS), and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts (P.L. 111-8 and P.L. 111-117).
Other Salient Gun Control Legislative Issues
Other salient firearms-related issues that continue to receive attention include (1) screening
firearms background check applicants against terrorist watch lists; (2) reforming the regulation of
federally licensed gun dealers; (3) requiring background checks for private firearms transfers at
gun shows; (4) more-strictly regulating certain firearms previously defined in statute as
“semiautomatic assault weapons”; and (5) banning or requiring the registration of certain long-
range .50 caliber rifles, which are commonly referred to as “sniper” rifles.
Brady Background and Terrorist Watch List Checks186
On November 5, 2009, U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot 13 persons to death and
wounded over 30 at Fort Hood, TX. Prior to the shootings, Hasan had corresponded by email
with a radical Muslim imam, Anwar al-Aulaqi, who U.S. authorities had long suspected of having
substantial ties to al-Qaeda.187 Although FBI counterterrorism agents were aware of Hasan’s
communications with al-Aulaqi,188 it was unclear at what level Hasan was being scrutinized by
the FBI.189 If he had been the subject of a full counterterrorism investigation, FBI policy would
have required that he be watch-listed.190 Depending upon the sequence of events, had Hasan been
watch-listed, there is a possibility that his purchase of a pistol191 and the required Brady
background check could have alerted FBI counterterrorism agents to that transfer, and they might
have been able to take steps that would have prevented the shootings. The Fort Hood shootings
renewed interest in the U.S. government’s use of terrorist watch lists for firearms- and explosives-
related background checks.192

185 U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives—Prohibition in
the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act,” July 15, 2008, available at http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/
316510.pdf.
186 For further information, see CRS Report RL33011, Terrorist Screening and Brady Background Checks for
Firearms
, by William J. Krouse.
187 Carrie Johnson, Spencer C. Hsu, and Ellen Nakashima, “Hasan Had Intensified Contact with Cleric: FBI Monitored
E-mail Exchanges Fort Hood Suspect Raised Prospect of Financial Transfers,” Washington Post, November 21, 2009,
p. A01.
188 Philip Rucker, Carrie Johnson, and Ellen Nakashima, “Hasan E-mails to Cleric Didn’t Result in Inquiry; Suspect in
Fort Hood Shootings Will Be Tried in Military Court,” Washington Post, November 10, 2009, p. A01.
189 According to a November 11, 2009, FBI press release, Hasan’s communications with Anwar al-Aulaqi were
assessed by the FBI in connection with an investigation of another subject, and the content of those communications
was explainable by his research as a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Medical Center and nothing else derogatory was
found that would have suggested that he was involved in terrorist activities or planning. U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Investigation Continues Into Fort Hood Shooting,” November 11, 2009.
190 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General, Audit Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Terrorist
Watchlist Nomination Practices
, Audit Report 09-25, May 2009, p. 11.
191 Hasan reportedly purchased the Fabrique Nationale 5.7mm pistol that he used in the shootings on August 1, 2009.
He also carried a .357 magnum revolver; however, it is unclear whether he fired the revolver.
192 Michael Bloomberg and Thomas Kean, “Enabling the Next Fort Hood? Congress’s Curbs on Gun Data Hurt
Investigations,” Washington Post, November 27, 2009, p. A23.
Congressional Research Service
45

Gun Control Legislation

Post-9/11 Modified NICS Procedures
Before February 2004, terrorist watch list checks were not part of the Brady background check
process because being a suspected or known terrorist was and is not a disqualifying factor for
firearms transfer/possession eligibility under federal or state law. As is the case today, to
determine such eligibility, the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System (NICS)
queries 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 that would not be included in the III or NCIC, for
example, persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, adjudicated as a mental
defective, or convicted of certain serious immigration violations, among others. The III contains
criminal history records for persons arrested and convicted of felonies and certain serious
misdemeanors. The NCIC contains law enforcement “hot files” on fugitives and persons subject
to restraining orders, among other persons. NCIC also contains 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.
In November 2002, DOJ initiated a NICS transaction audit to determine whether prohibited aliens
(non-citizens) were being improperly transferred firearms.193 As part of this audit, NICS
procedures were changed so that NICS examiners would be informed of VGTOF hits. Under
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6, moreover, the Administration initiated a broad-based
review of the use of watch lists, among other terrorist identification and screening mechanisms.194
In September 2003, the FBI-administered Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) was established and
work was begun to improve and merge several watch lists maintained by the U.S. government
into a consolidated Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB).195 Following those efforts, TSDB
lookout records from other agency watch lists were downloaded into VGTOF. By May 2007,
VGTOF contained more than 100,000 records.196 In 2009, the FBI created a separate hot file for
“known and appropriately suspected terrorists (KST)” by splitting VGTOF into separate gang and
terrorist files.197 As of March 31, 2010, the KST included 278,219 terrorist watch list records.198
In November 2003, DOJ directed the FBI to revise its NICS procedures to include measures to
screen prospective firearms transferees and permittees against terrorist watch list records (KST,
formerly VGTOF).199 Effective February 2004, the Brady background check process was altered
to include a terrorist watch list check and to alert NICS staff when a prospective firearms

193 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Gun Control and Terrorism: FBI Could Better Manage Firearm-Related
Background Checks Involving Terrorist Watch List Records
, GAO-05-127, January 2005, p. 7.
194 For further information, see CRS Report RL32366, Terrorist Identification, Screening, and Tracking Under
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6
, by William J. Krouse.
195 Ibid., p. 9.
196 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division,
“NCIC Marks 40 Years of Serving Law Enforcement,” The CJIS Link: Criminal Justice Information Services that
Connect Local, State, and Federal Law Enforcement
, vol. 10, no. 1, May 2007, p. 2.
197 Daniel D. Roberts, Assistant Director, Criminal Justice Information Services, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Statement Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, May 5, 2010, p. 1.
198 Statistics provided by the FBI Office of Congressional Affairs to CRS on May 11, 2010.
199 Ibid., p. 11.
Congressional Research Service
46

Gun Control Legislation

transferee or permit applicant is potentially identified as a known or suspected terrorist.200 In the
case of a watch list hit, NICS sends a delayed transfer (for up to three business days) response to
the querying FFL or POC. If NICS examiners cannot find a prohibiting factor, they immediately
contact the TSC and FBI Counterterrorism Division (CTD) to (1) validate the hit and (2) allow
FBI Special Agents in the field to check for possible prohibiting factors. If no prohibiting factors
are uncovered within the three-day period, a firearms dealer may proceed with the transaction at
his discretion, but FBI counterterrorism officials continue to work the case for up to 90 days,
during which time the background check is considered to be in an “open” status.201
If and when a transaction is approved, all identifying information submitted by or on behalf of the
transferee is destroyed within 24 hours.202 At the end of the 90-day period, if no prohibiting factor
has been reported to the NICS Center, all records related to the NICS transaction are destroyed
except for the NICS Transaction Number (NTN) and date of the transaction.203 If the FFL
proceeded with the transaction at his discretion following three business days and the applicant is
found to be disqualified, then the ATF will be notified and a firearms retrieval action will be
initiated in coordination with a JTTF.
Possible Issues for Congress and Related Legislative Proposals
When Congress passed the Brady Act in 1994, the use of terrorist watch lists during firearms-
related background checks was not considered. As a consequence, the Attorney General has no
specific statutory authority to screen prospective gun buyers against terrorist watch list records.
Nevertheless, the FBI adopted procedures to do this because being on such a list suggests that
there may be an underlying factor that would bar a prospective background check applicant from
possessing a firearm. Hence, a possible issue for Congress could be whether terrorist watch list
checks should be incorporated statutorily into the Brady background checks for firearms.
In addition, a proviso attached to the FY2005 DOJ annual appropriation and every year thereafter
requires that NICS-generated approved firearms transaction records be destroyed within 24
hours.204 Nevertheless, as described above, the FBI has been retaining approved firearms
transaction records for up to 90 days, if those records are related to terrorist watch list hits.
Furthermore, information on the subjects of those checks are passed on to FBI investigators in the
field. While the NICS records are eventually destroyed for non-denials, it is unknown what
happens to the information generated by valid NICS-related terrorist watch list hits that are
passed on to the FBI CTD and Special Agents in the field, who are usually assigned to Joint
Terrorism Task Forces. Information about those firearms transactions is possibly recorded and
stored electronically in the FBI’s investigative case files.
In the Brady Act, however, there is a provision that prohibits the (1) transfer of any Brady system
record to any other federal or state agency, or (2) the use of the Brady system as a national
registry of firearms or firearms owners.205 In light of the former prohibition, a second issue for

200 Dan Eggen, “FBI Gets More Time on Gun Buys,” Washington Post, November 22, 2003, p. A05.
201 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Gun Control and Terrorism: FBI Could Better Manage Firearm-Related
Background Checks Involving Terrorist Watch List Records
, GAO-05-127, January 2005, p. 32.
202 28 C.F.R. § 25.9(b)(1)(iii).
203 28 C.F.R. § 25.9(b)(1)(ii).
204 For FY2009, see section 511 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, (P.L. 111-8, 123 Stat. 596).
205 For example, subsection 103(i) of the Brady Act (P.L. 103-159; 107 Stat. 1542) includes the following provision:
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
47

Gun Control Legislation

Congress could be whether to grant the FBI greater authority to maintain and access NICS
records for the purposes of counterterrorism, or should existing statutory limitations that were
arguably designed to prevent the maintenance of and access to such records be strengthened. In
light of the first two issues, it follows that a third issue for Congress could be whether the
Attorney General should be given explicit authority to deny firearms transfers to watch-listed
persons on a case-by-case basis, or should all known and suspected terrorists be statutorily
prohibited from possessing firearms and explosives.
Several legislative proposals were introduced in the 111th Congress that would have addressed
Brady background and terrorist watch list checks. Although none of these bills would have
directly addressed whether terrorist watch list checks should have been incorporated statutorily
into the Brady background check process, several proposals would have either granted the FBI
greater authority to maintain, store, and access NICS records related to positive watch list
encounters, or would have authorized the Attorney General to deny a firearms transfer based
solely on a terrorist watch list hit. With regard to NICS record retention, Senator Lautenberg
introduced a bill (S. 2820) that would have authorized any federal or state official to maintain any
NICS records that resulted in a terrorist watch list hit for a minimum of 10 years, regardless of
whether the actual background check had resulted in an approved firearms transfer. This bill also
would have authorized the FBI to maintain NICS records on approved firearms transfers for not
less than 180 days.206
Representative McCarthy reintroduced a bill (H.R. 2401) 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 TSA.
The bill also would have prohibited such a person from shipping, transporting, possessing, or
receiving a firearm. Representative McCarthy introduced the same proposal in the 109th and 110th
Congresses (H.R. 1195 and H.R. 1167).
Senator Lautenberg and Representative King reintroduced the Denying Firearms and Explosives
to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009 (H.R. 2159/S. 1317). This bill has been dubbed the “Terror

(...continued)
PROHIBITION RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION SYSTEMS WITH RESPOECT TO
FIREARMS. – No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may – (1) require that any record or
portion thereof generated by the system established under this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned,
managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof; or (2) use the system
established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm
transaction or disposition, except with respect to persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United States
Code or State law, from receiving a firearm.
206 In the 110th Congress, Senator Lautenberg introduced a bill (S. 2935) that would have authorized the Attorney
General to retain firearms transfer records on persons who were suspected terrorists or their supporters, but who have
been transferred a firearm. Senator Lautenberg also introduced a bill (S. 2820) that would authorize federal or state
officials to maintain any NICS records that resulted in a terrorist watch list hit for a minimum of 10 years, and the FBI
to maintain NICS records on approved firearms transfers for not less than 180 days.
In the 109th Congress, Senator Lautenberg and Representative John Conyers introduced the Terrorist Apprehension and
Record Retention Act of 2005 (S. 578/H.R. 1225). This proposal would have (1) 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; (2) required that the FBI coordinate the response to such
occurrences, (3) authorized the retention of all related records for at least 10 years, and (4) allowed federal and state
officials access to such records. 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.
Congressional Research Service
48

Gun Control Legislation

Gap” bill. As in the 110th Congress, the language of this bill reflects a DOJ-drafted proposal.207
This proposal would have granted the Attorney General discretionary authority to deny a firearms
transfer or state-issued firearms permit to any applicant undergoing a NICS background check for
either a firearms transfer or state-issued firearms permit, if the Attorney General determined that
the applicant was a “dangerous terrorist.” Senator Lautenberg and Representative King
introduced similar bills in the 110th Congress (S. 1237/H.R. 2074). In the 112th Congress, Senator
Lautenberg has reintroduced this measure (S. 34).
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Hearing
On May 5, 2010, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held a
hearing on “Terrorists and Guns: The Nature of the Threat and Proposed Reforms.” GAO testified
about measures taken by the FBI to improved firearms and explosives background checks for
counterterrorism purposes.208 GAO reported that from February 2004 through February 2010,
there were 1,228 positive encounters with individuals watch-listed as terrorists through NICS
related firearms or explosives transactions.209 These encounters involved 650 individuals because
450 of these individuals were involved in multiple transactions.210 Six of these individuals were
involved in 10 or more transactions.211 In 1,119 encounters, the transactions were allowed to
proceed.212 In 109 encounters, the transactions were denied.213 From March 2009 to February
2009, moreover, there were 272 positive encounters and all of the transactions were allowed to
proceed, including one that involved explosives.214
Senator Joseph Lieberman, chair of the committee, noted that firearms had been used in at least
two deadly terrorist plots perpetrated by Muslim extremists. Those incidents included the Fort
Hood shootings noted above and the June 2009 Little Rock, AR, recruiting center shootings,
where two U.S. servicemen were shot—one was killed and the other wounded. In several other
thwarted plots, conspirators were arrested for planning to use firearms to attack servicemen at
Fort Dix, NJ, in 2006 and the Quantico, VA, Marine base in 2009.215 Senator Lindsey Graham,
however, voiced opposition to the Terror Gap proposal. He maintained that denying a firearms
transfer based upon a felony conviction in a lawful court was fundamentally different from doing
so based on a terrorist watch list record that was created by an investigator or intelligence
analyst.216

207 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, letter to the Honorable Richard B. Cheney, President,
United States Senate, from Richard A. Hertling, Acting Assistant Attorney General, April 25, 2007.
208 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Terrorist Watchlist Screening: FBI Has Enhanced Its Use of Information
from Firearm and Explosives Background Checks to Support Counterterrorism Efforts
, GAO-10-703T, May 5, 2010.
209 Ibid. p. 5.
210 Ibid.
211 Ibid.
212 Ibid.
213 Ibid.
214 Ibid., p. 2.
215 U.S. Senate, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Hearing on Terrorist Threat and
Guns
, 111th Congress, 2nd Session, May 5, 2010 (CQ Congressional Transcripts).
216 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
49

Gun Control Legislation

ATF Modernization Act
On at least two occasions during the 111th Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee postponed
hearings on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms
Modernization Act (S. 941). Senator Mike Crapo and Senator Patrick Leahy, Chair of the
Judiciary Committee, introduced this bill on April 30, 2009. Representatives Steve King and Zack
Space introduced a companion bill (H.R. 2296). In regard to regulating federally licensed
firearms dealers, this proposal would have
• established a two tier, graduated penalty system for violations characterized as
being of a minor or serious nature;
• established a process by which ATF licensing decisions could be reviewed by an
administrative law judge;
• required the Attorney General to issue guidelines governing ATF investigations
of GCA violations; and
• defined the “willful” standard of intent to mean “knowingly and intentionally”
disregarding a “legal duty.”
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
lead to the revocation of their licenses. Opponents argue that relaxing such provisions would
weaken ATF authority and efforts to reduce the number of “kitchen table top” dealers, who are
not substantively engaged in the business and, hence, are ineligible for such licenses, and “rogue”
dealers, who are not adequately controlling and accounting for their firearms inventories.217
Additional provisions in the bill would have addressed several other firearms-related issues
concerning machine guns, firearms parts, and handgun possession of a minor in the presence of a
parent or legal guardian. In the 112th Congress, Representative Steve King has introduced a
similar bill (H.R. 1093).
Gun Shows and Private Firearms Transfers
Federal law does not regulate gun shows specifically. Federal law regulating firearms 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 non-licensed persons seeking to obtain firearms from them, by purchase or
exchange. Conversely, non-licensed 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

217 In the 109th Congress, 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,
introduced the ATFE Modernization and Reform Act of 2006 (H.R. 5092) on April 5, 2006. 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. Also see U.S.
Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, The
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE): Gun Show Enforcement (Parts 1 and 2)
, 109th Cong.,
2nd sess., February 15 and 28, 2006, H.Hrg. 109-123 (Washington: GPO, 2006).
Congressional Research Service
50

Gun Control Legislation

required to conduct background checks at gun shows but not non-licensees? To those 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 firearms transfers within state lines). On
the other hand, those seeking to increase federal regulation of firearms may view the absence of
background checks for firearms transfers between non-licensed/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 firearms 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 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.218 In the 108th Congress, Senator McCain reintroduced this proposal as well (S.
1807). And, Representative Michael Castle introduced a similar gun show proposal (H.R. 3832).
Also in the 108th Congress, on March 2, 2004, during consideration of the Protection of Lawful
Commerce in Arms Act (S. 1805), the Senate passed a gun show-related amendment (S.Amdt.
2636) offered by Senator McCain by a yea-nay vote of 53-46 (Record Vote Number: 25).
However, the bill’s floor manager, Senator Larry Craig, pulled this bill from further floor
consideration before a final vote could be taken on the measure rather than risk passage of a bill
that included gun control and assault weapons ban provisions (the latter provision is described
below).
In the 109th Congress, Representative Castle reintroduced his proposal (H.R. 3540), but a similar
measure was not introduced in the Senate. In the 110th Congress, Representative Castle and
Senator Lautenberg reintroduced separate gun show proposals (H.R. 96 and S. 2577). Senator
Biden included similar provisions in the Crime Control and Prevention Act of 2007 (S. 2237). In
the 111th Congress, Senator Lautenberg and Representative Castle again reintroduced similar
measures that would have required background checks for private firearms transfers at guns
shows (S. 843 and H.R. 2324). In the 112th Congress, Senator Lautenberg has reintroduced this
measure (S. 35) and Representative McCarthy has introduced a companion measure (H.R. 591).
Expired 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 more 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.
The SAW ban 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

218 For further information, see CRS Report RL32249, Gun Control: Proposals to Regulate Gun Shows, by William J.
Krouse and T.J. Halstead (archived).
Congressional Research Service
51

Gun Control Legislation

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.219 There were
similar definitions for pistols and shotguns that were classified as semiautomatic assault
weapons.220 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.
During and following World War II, assault rifles were 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. By comparison, semiautomatic
firearms, including semiautomatic assault weapons, fire one round per pull of the trigger.
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 1 in 50, or less than
2%, used, carried, or possessed a semiautomatic assault weapon or machine gun.221 Under current
law, any firearm that can be fired in fully automatic mode or in multi-round bursts is classified as
a “machine gun” 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.
In the 108th Congress, proposals were introduced to extend or make permanent the ban, whereas
other proposals were made to modify 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 McCarthy and Senator 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.222 In the

219 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(B).
220 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(C) and (D).
221 For further information, see Caroline Wolf Harlow, Firearm Use by Offenders, at
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940.
222 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.
Congressional Research Service
52

Gun Control Legislation

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 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. Representative Mark Steven Kirk introduced the Assault
Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 (H.R. 6257). Senator Biden included provisions to
reauthorize the ban in the Crime Control and Prevention Act of 2007 (S. 2237). As described
above, in the wake of the Tucson shootings, Representative McCarthy introduced a measure that
would reinstate the large capacity ammunition feeding device ban (H.R. 308). Senator Lautenberg
introduced a similar measure (S. 32).
Long-Range .50 Caliber Rifles223
In the 109th Congress, legislation was introduced to regulate more strictly certain .50 caliber
rifles. Some of these rifles are chambered to fire a relatively large round 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 to commit crimes.
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)224 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 firearms registration. In the
110th Congress, Senator Feinstein introduced a similar measure (S. 1331).
The other proposal introduced by Representative James Moran, the 50 Caliber Sniper Rifle
Reduction Act (H.R. 654), also would have amended the NFA to include those weapons, but it
would have also amended the Gun Control Act225 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,

223 For further information, see CRS Report RS22151, Long-Range Fifty Caliber Rifles: Should They Be More Strictly
Regulated?
, by William J. Krouse.
224 26 U.S.C., Chapter 53, § 5801 et seq.
225 18 U.S.C., Chapter 44, § 921 et seq.
Congressional Research Service
53

Gun Control Legislation

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.

Congressional Research Service
54

Gun Control Legislation

Appendix. Major Federal Firearms and
Related Statutes

The following principal changes to the Gun Control Act have been enacted 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 recordkeeping
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 non-licensed persons 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 (younger than 18 years old)
without prior written consent from the juvenile’s parent or legal guardian;
exceptions related to employment, ranching, farming, target practice, and hunting
are provided. In addition, the act disqualifies persons under court orders related
to domestic abuse from receiving a firearm from any person or possessing a
firearm. It also increased penalties for the criminal use of firearms. The assault
weapons ban expired on September 13, 2004.
• The 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
Congressional Research Service
55

Gun Control Legislation

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.226
• 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 firearms transfers to, or possession by, most non-
immigrants and those non-immigrants 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 firearms owners seek
to reacquire 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.
• The 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.
• The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (P.L. 109-92) prohibits certain
types of lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and dealers to recover damages
related to the criminal or unlawful use of their products (firearms and
ammunition) by other persons.227 This law also 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 “armor-
piercing” ammunition based on certain performance characteristics, including
barrel length and amount of propellant (gun powder).
• The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of
2005 (P.L. 109-162) 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.
• The USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-
177) includes a provision that requires that the ATF Director be appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

226 See CRS Report RL31143, Firearms Prohibitions and Domestic Violence Convictions: The Lautenberg
Amendment
, by T. J. Halstead.
227 For further information, see CRS Report RS22074, Limiting Tort Liability of Gun Manufacturers and Gun Sellers:
Legal Analysis of P.L. 109-92 (2005)
, by Henry Cohen.
Congressional Research Service
56

Gun Control Legislation

• The Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006, which was included in
the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (P.L. 109-295),
amended the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. § 5207) to prohibit 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. Also, 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 under the control of
an agency, providing disaster or emergency relief.

Author Contact Information

William J. Krouse

Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy
wkrouse@crs.loc.gov, 7-2225


Congressional Research Service
57