{ "id": "R44655", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44655", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 587054, "date": "2017-04-19", "retrieved": "2020-01-02T14:38:04.231663", "title": "Gun Control: Federal Law and Legislative Action in the 114th Congress", "summary": "In the 114th Congress, the Senate debated several gun proposals following two high-fatality mass shootings in December 2015 and June 2016. After both shootings, Senate debate coalesced around the following issues:\nShould the Attorney General be given the authority to deny firearms (and explosives) transfers to persons she determines to be \u201cdangerous terrorists\u201d?\nShould federal background check requirements be expanded to include intrastate firearms transfers among private, unlicensed persons?\nShould grants be provided or withheld to encourage state, local, municipal, tribal, and territorial authorities to improve computer access to records on persons prohibited from possessing firearms for the purposes of background checks?\nShould definitions related to mental incompetency in federal gun control regulations be codified or revised?\nDebate on the latter three issues mirrored congressional debate that followed the December 2012, Newtown, CT, mass shooting. Similar efforts were made in the House of Representatives to bring gun control proposals to the House floor for general debate and votes, but those efforts proved unsuccessful. While Congress did not pass any of these proposals, Congress included a provision in the 21st Century Cures Act (P.L. 114-255) that codified certain Department of Veterans\u2019 Affairs procedures related to benefit claims, mental incompetency determinations, and gun control.\nIn December 2015, the Senate debated several gun control amendments during consideration of the Restoring Americans\u2019 Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act (H.R. 3762). Two of those amendments (S.Amdt. 2910 and S.Amdt. 2912) addressed firearms transfers and dangerous terrorists. Another amendment (S.Amdt. 2908) would have expanded federal firearms background check requirements to cover private, intrastate transfers between non-gun dealers, when such transfers were arranged in public fora, such as on the Internet or at a gun show or flea market. Still another amendment (S.Amdt. 2914) would not have expanded the scope of federal background check requirements, but included provisions to improve background checks.\nIn June 2016, the Senate again debated several gun control amendments during consideration of the FY2017 Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) Appropriations bill (H.R. 2578, the expected vehicle for S. 2837). One amendment (S.Amdt. 4750) would have expanded the scope of federal background check requirements and captured more private, intrastate firearms transfers than the amendment (S.Amdt. 2908) to H.R. 3762. In addition, several amendments were considered that would have addressed firearms transfers and dangerous terrorists (S.Amdt. 4720, S.Amdt. 4749, S.Amdt. 4858, and S.Amdt. 4859). As before, another amendment (S.Amdt. 4751) would not have expanded the scope of federal background checks requirements, but included provisions to improve information sharing for background check purposes on persons who are ineligible to receive or possess firearms.\nFor context, this report provides background on the two major federal gun control statutory frameworks: the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), as amended, and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended. It provides analysis of the Senate amendments offered in the 114th Congress that would have addressed the above listed issues. It tracks the status of gun control-related appropriations for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Federal Bureau of Investigation National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Section, National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), and NICS Amendments Record Improvement Program (NARIP).", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44655", "sha1": "af5b86e94b753a9c97077dbf5937998ef042f558", "filename": "files/20170419_R44655_af5b86e94b753a9c97077dbf5937998ef042f558.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44655_files&id=/0.png": "files/20170419_R44655_images_4aa7848695268ac8b03a53fd46f53cdb3a99aea0.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44655", "sha1": "204a8c30c9ca5014c8050f7d2feb5fd5eb8f231f", "filename": "files/20170419_R44655_204a8c30c9ca5014c8050f7d2feb5fd5eb8f231f.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 456529, "date": "2016-10-14", "retrieved": "2016-11-28T21:22:40.343356", "title": "Gun Control: Federal Law and Legislative Action in the 114th Congress", "summary": "In the 114th Congress, the Senate debated several gun proposals following two high-fatality mass shootings in December 2015 and June 2016. After both shootings, Senate debate coalesced around the following issues:\nShould the Attorney General be given the authority to deny firearms (and explosives) transfers to persons she determines to be \u201cdangerous terrorists\u201d?\nShould federal background check requirements be expanded to include intrastate firearms transfers among private, unlicensed persons?\nShould grants be provided or withheld to encourage state, local, municipal, tribal, and territorial authorities to improve computer access to records on persons prohibited from possessing firearms for the purposes of background checks?\nShould definitions related to mental incompetency in federal gun control regulations be codified or revised?\nDebate on the latter three issues mirrored congressional debate that followed the December 2012, Newtown, CT, mass shooting. Similar efforts were made in the House of Representatives to bring gun control proposals to the House floor for general debate and votes, but those efforts proved unsuccessful.\nIn December 2015, the Senate debated several gun control amendments during consideration of the Restoring Americans\u2019 Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act (H.R. 3762). Two of those amendments (S.Amdt. 2910 and S.Amdt. 2912) addressed firearms transfers and dangerous terrorists. Another amendment (S.Amdt. 2908) would have expanded federal firearms background check requirements to cover private, intrastate transfers between non-gun dealers, when such transfers were arranged in public fora, such as on the Internet or at a gun show or flea market. Still another amendment (S.Amdt. 2914) would not have expanded the scope of federal background check requirements, but included provisions to improve background checks.\nIn June 2016, the Senate again debated several gun control amendments during consideration of the FY2017 Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) Appropriations bill (H.R. 2578, the expected vehicle for S. 2837). One amendment (S.Amdt. 4750) would have expanded the scope of federal background check requirements and captured more private, intrastate firearms transfers than the amendment (S.Amdt. 2908) to H.R. 3762. In addition, several amendments were considered that would have addressed firearms transfers and dangerous terrorists (S.Amdt. 4720, S.Amdt. 4749, S.Amdt. 4858, and S.Amdt. 4859). As before, another amendment (S.Amdt. 4751) would not have expanded the scope of federal background checks requirements, but included provisions to improve information sharing for background check purposes on persons who are ineligible to receive or possess firearms for background check purposes.\nFor context, this report provides background on the two major federal gun control statutory frameworks: the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), as amended, and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), as amended. It also provides analysis of the Senate amendments offered in the 114th Congress that would have addressed the above listed issues, as well as the status of gun control-related appropriations.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44655", "sha1": "1d6f2b5b9bb3d13114b8effae7adfd952b5a1aac", "filename": "files/20161014_R44655_1d6f2b5b9bb3d13114b8effae7adfd952b5a1aac.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44655", "sha1": "c97cceb6f1f9901b4fc348f15606a1280a057fdd", "filename": "files/20161014_R44655_c97cceb6f1f9901b4fc348f15606a1280a057fdd.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Appropriations", "Crime Policy", "Intelligence and National Security" ] }