{ "id": "R45970", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R45970", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 606415, "date": "2019-10-17", "retrieved": "2019-10-21T22:19:35.600164", "title": "Gun Control: National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Operations and Related Legislation", "summary": "The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) administers a computer system of systems that is used to query federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial criminal history record information (CHRI) and other records to determine an individual\u2019s firearms transfer/receipt and possession eligibility. This FBI-administered system is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS, or parallel state systems, must be checked and the pending transfer approved by the FBI or state point of contact before a federally licensed gun dealer may transfer a firearm to any customer who is not also a federally licensed gun dealer. Current federal law does not require background checks for intrastate (same state), private-party firearms transactions between nondealers, though such checks are required under several state laws. \nIn the 116th Congress, the House of Representatives passed three bills that would expand federal firearms background check requirements and firearms transfer/receipt and possession ineligibility criteria related to domestic violence. \nThe Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 (H.R. 8), a \u201cuniversal\u201d background check bill, would make nearly all intrastate, private-party firearms transactions subject to the recordkeeping and NICS background check requirements of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). For the past two decades, many gun control advocates have viewed the legal circumstances that allow individuals to transfer firearms intrastate among themselves without being subject to the licensing, recordkeeping, and background check requirements of the GCA as a \u201cloophole\u201d in the law, particularly within the context of gun shows. Gun rights supporters often oppose such measures, underscoring that it is already unlawful to knowingly transfer a firearm or ammunition to a prohibited person. In addition, some observers object to these circumstances being characterized as a loophole, in that the effects of the underlying provisions of current law are not unintended or inadvertent. \nThe Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019 (H.R. 1112) would lengthen the amount of time firearms transactions could be delayed pending a completed NICS background check from three business days under current law to several weeks. The timeliness and accuracy of FBI-administered firearms background checks through NICS\u2014particularly with regard to \u201cdelayed proceeds\u201d\u2014became a matter of controversy following the June 17, 2015, Charleston, SC, mass shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. The assailant in this incident had acquired a pistol following a three-business-day-delayed sale under current law and an unresolved background check. While it has never been definitely determined whether the assailant\u2019s arrest record would have prohibited the firearms transfer, this incident prompted gun control advocates to label the three-business-day delayed transfer provision of current law as the \u201cCharleston loophole.\u201d Gun rights supporters counter that firearms background checks should be made more accurate and timely, so that otherwise eligible customers are not wrongly denied a firearms transfer, and ineligible persons are not allowed to acquire a firearm.\nThe Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019 (H.R. 1585) would expand federal firearms ineligibility provisions related to domestic violence to include former dating partners under court-ordered restraints or protective orders and persons convicted of misdemeanor stalking offenses. Gun control advocates see this proposal as closing off the \u201cboyfriend loophole.\u201d Gun rights supporters are wary about certain provisions of this proposal that would allow a court to issue a restraining order ex parte; that is, without the respondent/defendant having the opportunity for a hearing before a judge or magistrate.\nThis report provides an overview of federal firearms background check procedures, analysis of recent legislative action, discussion about possible issues for Congress, and related materials.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45970", "sha1": "2c9326690099b6cfc1e2ed8b528ac243bb011b0a", "filename": "files/20191017_R45970_2c9326690099b6cfc1e2ed8b528ac243bb011b0a.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45970_files&id=/5.png": "files/20191017_R45970_images_26e93c751962b1136deb66f16f4a36204766690c.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45970_files&id=/3.png": "files/20191017_R45970_images_5cd7f2a84fe2d912128921d5a5ada41938cb42bd.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45970_files&id=/1.png": "files/20191017_R45970_images_e850b4a2b58dfcb82868841f9ca172598bfe4e7b.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45970_files&id=/4.png": "files/20191017_R45970_images_7212b5877c81d0db021466ab59dc408fac42e50b.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45970_files&id=/2.png": "files/20191017_R45970_images_5e77d5cb45577290de0679b09e840007275a25b1.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R45970_files&id=/0.png": "files/20191017_R45970_images_f15e742738990110c07e694822cdf26f027064f1.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45970", "sha1": "7720f9b5f1ec982a9d4deb2c7a6765037f548f04", "filename": "files/20191017_R45970_7720f9b5f1ec982a9d4deb2c7a6765037f548f04.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4851, "name": "Firearms Regulation" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Crime Policy", "Economic Policy", "Intelligence and National Security" ] }