DOCSLIB.ORG

82244-82245NCJRS.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
82244-82245NCJRS.Pdf If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. -------~------- ~----- ~ --- -- ----- -~ 'i1 ,? , MFl FIREARMS ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS OF THE BUREA~ OF ALCOHOL1 TOBACCO AND FIREAR~iS t,. HEARII'lG BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON FIREARMS ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS OF THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS JULY 2, 1980 Serial No. 74 f i i f ~f\\ I, Ii -11 I ~ ~ E'rinted .for tl>~·ll"H)f tl>e COnnDlttee on tl>e Judiciary I '" ! u.s. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE £\,'\:, WASHINGTON: 1981 ! J ') ! CONTENTS COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY WITNESSES PETER W. RODINO, JR., New Jersey, Chairman JACK BROOKS, Texas ROBERT McCLORY, Illinois Page ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin TOM RAILSBACK, Illinois Dessler, Marvin, Chief IDounsel, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ....... 31 DON EDWARDS, California HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York Dickerson, G. R., Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ................ 31 JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan M. CALDWELL BUTLER, Virginia Prepared statement ................................................................................................ 72 JOHN F. SEIBERLING, Ohio CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California Fields, Samuel, field director, National Coalition To Ban Handguns .................. 95 GEORGE E. DANIELSON, California JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio Hansen, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho ... 18 ROBERT F. DRINAN, Massachusetts HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois Higgins, Stephen, Deputy Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms .. 31 ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, New York THOMAS N. KINDNESS, Ohio Keathley, Miles, Assistant Director of Criminal Enforcement of Bureau of ROMANO L. MAZZOLI, Kentucky HAROLD S. SAWYER, Michigan Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms ................................................................................ 31 WILLIAM J. HUGHES, New Jersey DAN LUNGREN, California Perret, Edmund J., II, president, chairman of the board of directors, National SAM B. HALL, JR., Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Coalition To Ban Handguns ...................................................................................... 95 LAMAR GUDGER, North Carolina Wisconsin Rodino, Hon. Peter W., Jr., chairman House Judiciary Committee ..................... 2 HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri Prepared statement ................................................................................................ 5 HERBERT E. HARRIS II, Virginia Symms, Hon. Steven D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho .. 12 MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma Prepared statement ............................................. '" ....................................... 10 MICHAEL D. BARNES, Maryland Tuller, Mark, counsel, National Coalition To Ban Handguns ................................ 95 DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas BOB CARR, Michigan ADDITIONAL MATERIAL BILLY LEE EVANS, Georgia Compliance of Federal Firearms Licensees with Federal, State, and local laws ALAN A. PARKER, General Counsel GARNER J. CLINE, Staff Director and standard business practices ............................................................................... 139 FRANKLIN G. POLK, Associate Counsel r:iFi~~:~~~~;~ilifso~~~.~~.~.~~.. ~~.~.~~~~~~~: .. ~~~tl.4.-~~~: ..~~~~.~~~ ..~.~~ 35 Kates, Prof. Don B., Jr., prepared statement ............................................................ 125 McClory, Hon. Robert, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, SUBCOMMITl'EE ON CRIME letter dated JUly 2, 1980, to Hon. John Conyers, Jr., chairman, Subcommit- tee on Crim/3 ................................................................................................................. 111 JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman McClure, Hon. James A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho, prepared DON EDWARDS, California JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio statement ...................................................................................................................... 15 LAMAR GUDGER, North Carolina HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois Robinson, Hon. Kenneth J., a Representative in Congress from the State of HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Virginia, prapared statement ................................................................................... 124 DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas Wisconsin Shields, N. T. "Pete," chairman, Handgun Control, Inc., a letter dated JUly 2, BILLY LEE EVANS, Georgia 1980, to Hon. John Conyers, Jr ............................................................................... .. 125 Solarz, Hon, Stephen J., a Representative in Congress from the State of New HAYDEN W. GREGORY, Counsel York, prepared statement ......................................................................................... 108 STEVEN G. RAIKIN, Assistant Counsel Synar, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, THOMAS M. BOYD, Associate Counsel prepared statement ..................................................................................................... 107 OIl (III) U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the 'i person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or pOlicies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this C .. t?i8hJied material has been granted by Public Domain/u.s. House of Representatives ACQUn$rnON~ to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the ~t owner. ~--.----.--------------------------~------.---- FIREARMS ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS OF THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIRE­ ARMS .. WEDNESDAY, JULY Z·, 1980 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMI.'rTEE ON CRIME OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UTashington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 2237 Rayburn House Office Building; the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Conyers, Gudger, Volkmer, and Ash­ brook. Also present: Hayden Gregory, counsel; Franklin Lamb, assistant counsel; and Deborah K. Owen, associate counsel. Mr. CONYERS. The subcommittee will come to order. This is the Subcommittee on Crime of the Judiciary Committee, and we welcome you here today for an informative oversight hear­ ing on firearms enforcement efforts of the Bureau of Alcohol, To­ bucco and Firearms. It has been awhile since we have heard from the Bureau regard­ ing its efforts and enforcement programs, which responsibility was given to the Bureau under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. We are here to learn firsthand what problems BATF is having under the present law and what its specific programs and proposals are for stemming the flow of illegal gun traffic around the United States. We are facing a very serious and growing problem involving the use of handguns in crimes of violence. During the nlid-1970's there were over 40 million handguns in the United States. Today it is estimated that there are over 50 million. This is approximately a 25-peT'cent increase in the number of handguns over the past 6 years. While mainly for legal uses, it also indicates a large criminal demand for handguns, It is toward the latter that our enforcement efforts must be directed. A number of bills are before the subcommittee which directly address the question of BATF enforcement responsibility and au­ thority. One bill would transfer enforcement authority from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department. Another bill would leave authority with BATF, but would curtail the Federal enforcement authority in a number of respects. Although this is an oversight hearing and not a hearing on the (1) .------~.~--. - 2 3 bills as such, it is expected that some witnesses will wish to com­ ment on provisions of these bills in the course of commenting on W~ile we were unable to bring to the floor handgun legislation BATF's enforcement policies. WhICh wou.ld hav~ been adopted, I think that there certainly had We welcome all the witnesses here today. Before recognizing our be~n a basIs and Indeed there were grounds for favorable consider­ first witness, the chairman received a request to cover this hearing atIOn of that measure by the Congress. in whole or in part by television broadcast, radio broadcast, photog­ What has come to the attention of the Subcommittee on Crime raphy, or by other methods, and in accordance with Committee are the alarming indications that the trends for violent crime­ Rule yea) permission will be granted, unless there is objection. murder and aggravated assault-continue to increase and that the Hearing no objection, permission is granted. p~rcentage of t?ese c:imes committed by handguns remains very Weare very pleased to begin these oversight hearings with the hIgh; that cnmmal mlSUlse of firearms exacts a large social cost in chairman of the full committee of the Judiciary, Hon. Peter terms of lives lost, pers.onal injury and fear' and criminal justice Rodino, the gentleman from New Jersey, who has served on Judici­ resources expended is also well known to ~ost of us here today. ary for many years and many years as a Congressman. His concern Recent research-I know that this is plowing the same ground with this subject matter is very widely known and recognized. We that we have been over before but I think it needs to be stated time wish to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thursday April 6, 1995
    4±6±95 Thursday Vol. 60 No. 66 April 6, 1995 Pages 17433±17624 Briefings on How To Use the Federal Register For information on briefings in Washington, DC, and Salt Lake City, UT, see announcement on the inside cover of this issue. federal register 1 II Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 66 / Thursday, April 6, 1995 SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES PUBLIC Subscriptions: Paper or fiche 202±512±1800 FEDERAL REGISTER Published daily, Monday through Friday, Assistance with public subscriptions 512±1806 (not published on Saturdays, Sundays, or on official holidays), by Online: the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Telnet swais.access.gpo.gov, login as newuser <enter>, no Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register > Act (49 Stat. 500, as amended; 44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the password <enter ; or use a modem to call (202) 512±1661, login as swais, no password <enter>, at the second login as regulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register > > (1 CFR Ch. I). Distribution is made only by the Superintendent of newuser <enter , no password <enter . Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC Assistance with online subscriptions 202±512±1530 20402. Single copies/back copies: The Federal Register provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 512±1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 512±1803 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and Executive Orders and Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress and other Federal agency documents of public interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Control Legislation
    Gun Control Legislation William J. Krouse Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy May 27, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32842 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Gun Control Legislation Summary Congress has continued to debate the efficacy and constitutionality of federal regulation of firearms and ammunition, with strong advocates arguing for and against greater gun control. Past legislative proposals have raised the following questions: What restrictions on firearms are permissible under the Constitution? Does gun control help reduce violent crime? Would household, street corner, and schoolyard disputes be less lethal if firearms were more difficult to acquire? Or, would more restrictive gun control policies diminish an individual’s ability to defend himself. Speaking to these questions either in whole or part, on June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court issued its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and found that the District of Columbia (DC) handgun ban violated an individual’s right under the Second Amendment to lawfully possess a firearm in his home for self defense. In the 110th Congress, pro gun Members of the House of Representatives, who were dissatisfied with the District’s response to the Heller decision, passed a bill that would have further overturned provisions of the District’s gun laws. In the 111th Congress, pro gun Members of the Senate amended the DC voting rights bill (S. 160) with language similar to the House bill (described above) and passed that bill on February 26, 2009. House leadership, meanwhile, has reportedly been negotiating to end the impasse over the District’s gun laws and bring its version of the DC voting rights bill (H.R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Discriminatory History of Gun Control David Babat University of Rhode Island
    University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Senior Honors Projects Honors Program at the University of Rhode Island 2009 The Discriminatory History of Gun Control David Babat University of Rhode Island Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Babat, David, "The Discriminatory History of Gun Control" (2009). Senior Honors Projects. Paper 140. http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/140http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/140 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Program at the University of Rhode Island at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. David Babat [email protected] The Discriminatory History of Gun Control Introduction Gun control in the United States is based on a long history of discrimination which continues to this day. While blacks were the first targets of gun control measures, different racial and ethnic minorities have been targeted over time, and today the poor now face economic discrimination in many gun control laws. Gun control may be portrayed as a measure to reduce crime,1 but even in its earliest forms firearms regulation has been used as a means to control specific societal groups by keeping them from possessing weapons. The first selectively restrictive gun control legislation was enacted in the pre-Revolution South and primarily aimed at keeping free blacks from owning firearms and maintaining a white monopoly on power. Many different forms of gun control laws were implemented before and after the Revolution to keep firearms out of African-American hands.
    [Show full text]
  • From Social Welfare to Social Control: Federal War in American Cities, 1968-1988
    From Social Welfare to Social Control: Federal War in American Cities, 1968-1988 Elizabeth Kai Hinton Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2013 © 2012 Elizabeth Kai Hinton All rights reserved ABSTRACT From Social Welfare to Social Control: Federal War in American Cities, 1968-1988 Elizabeth Hinton The first historical account of federal crime control policy, “From Social Welfare to Social Control” contextualizes the mass incarceration of marginalized Americans by illuminating the process that gave rise to the modern carceral state in the decades after the Civil Rights Movement. The dissertation examines the development of the national law enforcement program during its initial two decades, from the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which established the block grant system and a massive federal investment into penal and juridical agencies, to the Omnibus Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which set sentencing guidelines that ensured historic incarceration rates. During this critical period, Presidential Administrations, State Departments, and Congress refocused the domestic agenda from social programs to crime and punishment. To challenge our understanding of the liberal welfare state and the rise of modern conservatism, “From Social Welfare to Social Control” emphasizes the bipartisan dimensions of punitive policy and situates crime control as the dominant federal response to the social and demographic transformations brought about by mass protest and the decline of domestic manufacturing. The federal government’s decision to manage the material consequences of rising unemployment, subpar school systems, and poverty in American cities as they manifested through crime reinforced violence within the communities national law enforcement legislation targeted with billions of dollars in grant funds from 1968 onwards.
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Control Legislation
    Gun Control Legislation William J. Krouse Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy February 3, 2011 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32842 CRS Report for Congress Prepared 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 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. 496). This report provides basic firearms-related statistics, an overview of federal firearms law, and a summary of legislative action in the 111th Congress and selected legislative action in the 110th Congress that involved issues revisited in the 111th Congress. The report concludes with a discussion of other salient issues that have generated significant congressional interest in the past, including the 1994-2004 LCAFD ban. 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 violated an individual’s right under the Second Amendment to lawfully possess a firearm in his home for self-defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Control Legislation
    Gun Control Legislation William J. Krouse Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy November 14, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL32842 CRS Report for Congress Prepared 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. In the wake of the July 20, 2012, Aurora, CO, theater mass shooting, in which 12 people were shot to death and 58 wounded (7 of them critically) by a lone gunman, it is likely that there will be calls in the 112th Congress to reconsider a 1994 ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices that expired in September 2004. There were similar calls to ban such feeding devices (see S. 436/H.R. 1781) following the January 8, 2011, Tucson, AZ, mass shooting, in which 6 people were killed and 14 wounded, including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was grievously wounded. These calls could be amplified by the August 5, 2012, Sikh temple shooting in Milwaukee, WI, in which six worshipers were shot to death and three wounded by a lone gunman. The 112th Congress continues to consider the implications of Operation Fast and Furious and allegations that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) mishandled that Phoenix, AZ-based gun trafficking investigation. On June 28, 2012, the House passed a resolution (H.Res. 711) citing Attorney General Eric Holder with contempt for his failure to produce additional, subpoenaed documents related to Operation Fast and Furious to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Homicide Research Working Group Meetings, 1997 and 1998
    T O EN F J TM U R ST U.S. Department of Justice A I P C E E D B O J C S F A V Office of Justice Programs F M O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR National Institute of Justice JUSTICE National Institute of Justice Research Forum Proceedings of the Homicide Research Working Group Meetings, 1997 and 1998 1997: Policy, Practice, and Homicide Research 1998: Bridging the Gaps: Collaborations on Lethal Violence Research, Theory, and Prevention Policy U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street N.W. Washington, DC 20531 Janet Reno Attorney General Raymond C. Fisher Associate Attorney General Laurie Robinson Assistant Attorney General Noël Brennan Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jeremy Travis Director, National Institute of Justice Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij Proceedings of the Homicide Research Working Group Meetings, 1997 and 1998 May 1999 NCJ 175709 Jeremy Travis Director Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Table of Contents 1997: Policy, Practice, and Homicide Research......................................1 Discussion 1997 Keynote Kick-Off: What Works? David Kennedy...............................................................3 Building Bridges Between Research and Practice: Youth Violence Prevention Rich Rosenfeld and Troy Miles Anthony Braga, David Kennedy, and Tito Whittington Don Faggiani and Colleen McLaughlin.............................................4 Bridging the Gaps for the Virginia “Cradle-to-Grave” Homicide Project Colleen R.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal No. 101 Proposal No
    Proposal No. 101 Proposal No. 102 Name: Arrion Azimi Name: George Zhang Delegation: Albany YMCA Delegation: South Valley/SV YMCA 1 TOPIC OF CONCERN: 1 TOPIC OF CONCERN: 2 Federalizing and reforming education 2 This proposal calls for mandatory fact checking by a third party for all 3 3 commercial media outlets. 4 JUSTIFICATION: 4 5 The education system in America, one of the most prosperous and powerful nations 5 JUSTIFICATION: 6 in the world, is broken. According to a study from Newsweek, the U.S. ranks #26 on 6 It’s undeniable that people assume the news they watch is factual. 7 the List of 100 Countries with the Best Education. This is due to lack of a steady 7 Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case. There have been many cases where 8 curriculum, which allows certain districts to teach biased curriculum and private 8 the breaking news of the day is blatantly incorrect, with the usual victims being 9 schools with religious agendas to ignore certain material (according to a study by 9 the new media, politicians, and whatever’s popular among the current 10 TIME, private school test scores are on the same level as public school ones, and the 10 generation. Perhaps the most well-known example among teenagers is the 2008 11 education from public schools is usually less biased). The US also lacks the effective 11 Fox News report on the Mass Effect “sex scandal”, where it was alleged by an 12 trade school system of Europe, which benefits both the economy and students 12 invited speaker that there was“full digital nudity and sex” and that players 13 uninterested in higher learning.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States Petitioner, V. Respondent
    No. ________________ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NERSES NICK BRONSOZIAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. __________________________________________________________________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari To The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ___________________________________________________________________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ___________________________________________________________________ JOHN L. LITTRELL COUNSEL OF RECORD BIENERT | KATZMAN PC 903 CALLE AMANECER #350 SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673 TELEPHONE: (949) 369-3700 [email protected] Attorney for Petitioner QUESTIONS PRESENTED When the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) was passed in 1934, the sole constitutional authority for the law was Congress’s power to tax under U.S. Const. Article I, § 8, cl. 1. Congress recognized that it did not have the power to ban disfavored firearms outright. So instead, it passed a law that required certain “noxious” firearms, including machineguns, be registered and taxed. See 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Fifty-two years later, however, Congress passed the Firearms Owner Protection Act (“FOPA”). Enacted under Congress’s newly expanded Commerce Clause power, the FOPA banned the possession of all previously unregistered machineguns. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Since the passage of § 922(o), the government has steadfastly refused to register or tax the possession of previously unregistered machineguns under the NFA. But, it continues to prosecute and imprison individuals for failing to register those machineguns. Does Congress’s power to tax give it the power to punish the possession of unregistered machineguns under § 5861(d) of the NFA, even though it is impossible to register and pay tax on those machineguns, the law generates no revenue, and the only enforcement mechanism is prosecution? i TABLE OF CONTENTS Opinions Below .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Control: National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Operations and Related Legislation
    Gun Control: National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Operations and Related Legislation October 17, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45970 SUMMARY R45970 Gun Control: National Instant Criminal October 17, 2019 Background Check System (NICS) Operations William J. Krouse and Related Legislation Specialist in Domestic Security and Crime Policy 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’s 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. In 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. The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 (H.R. 8), a “universal” 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 “loophole” in the law, particularly within the context of gun shows.
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Control (1)” of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R
    The original documents are located in Box 18, folder “Gun Control (1)” of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box 18 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library '. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON March 10, 1975 MEMORANDUM FOR: ylPHIL BUCHEN JIM CANNON FROM: JACKMA~ As mentioned early in the senior staff meeting this morning, the question of gun control legislation is receiving increased attention. This is becoming evident in three principal areas: namely, the Congress, the media, and in organizations that support and oppose gun control legislation. As you are aware, this is a subject with highly emotional interest on both sides of the issue. It is important to know that the President, as a member of Congress and as Minority Leader, had occasion to take position>on this subject, and you might make an effort to establish more precisely what those positions were, particularly by reviewing his public statements.
    [Show full text]
  • Application for Federal Firearms License
    OMB No. 1140-0018 U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Application for Federal Firearms License Part A 1. Applicant’s Business/Activity is: Individual Owner (Sole Proprietor) Partnership Corporation LLC Collector (which can be an individual/partnership/corporation or LLC) Other (specify) 2. Licensee Name (Enter name of Owner/Sole Proprietor OR Partnership (include name of each partner) OR Corporation Name OR LLC Name) 3. Trade or Business Name(s), if any 4. Employer Identification Number 5. Name of County in which (EIN), if any (see definition #17) Business/Activity is Located 6. Business/Activity Address (RFD or Street Number, City, State, 7. Mailing Address (if different from address in item #6) and ZIP Code) (NOTE: This address CANNOT be a P.O. Box.) 8. Contact Numbers (Include Area Code) Business/Activity Phone Fax Number Cell Phone Business Email 9. Describe the specific activity applicant is engaged in or intends to engage in, which requires a Federal Firearms License (sale of ammunition alone does not require a Federal Firearms License). 10. Application is made for a license under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44 as a: (Place an “X” in the appropriate box(es). Multiple license types may be selected- see instruction #8. Submit the fee noted next to the box(es) with the application. Licenses are issued for a 3-year period. See instruction #5 for payment information). Type Description of License Type Fee Dealer in Firearms Other than Destructive Devices (Includes: rifles, shotguns, pistols, revolvers,
    [Show full text]