I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 322

Entitled the ‘‘State Correctional Litigation Reform Act of 1995’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. MCINTOSH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

Entitled the ‘‘State Correctional Litigation Reform Act of

1995’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 TITLE I—STATE CORRECTIONAL

4 LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995

5 SECTION 101. SHORT TITLE.

6 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Law Abiding Citizens

7 Safety Act of 1995’’.

8 SEC. 102. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

9 (A) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that:

10 (1) Among the most important purposes of the

11 criminal law are: the need for criminal punishments
2

HR 322 IH

1 to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote

2 respect for the law, to provide just punishment for

3 the offense, to afford adequate deterrence to crimi4 nal conduct, and to protect the public from further

5 crimes.

6 (2) ‘‘The Constitution does not mandate com7 fortable prison conditions; only those deprivations

8 denying the minimal civilized measure of life’s neces9 sities are sufficiently grave to form the basis of an

10 Eighth Amendment violation’’. Wilson v. Seiter, 115

11 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1991), citing Rhodes v. Chapman,

12 452 U.S. 337 (1981).

13 (3) An inmate should not be able to successfully

14 challenge conditions of confinement of an institution

15 unless he establishes both that the condition con16 stitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of

17 pain such that he is deprived the minimum civilized

18 measure of life’s necessities and that prison officials

19 are deliberately indifferent to his plight. Wilson v.

20 Seiter, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1991), Helling et al. v.

21 McKinney (United States Supreme Court, No. 91–

22 1958, June 18, 1993).

23 (4) As Judge Posner recognized, ‘‘ * * * the

24 infliction of disutility * * * is one of the objectives

25 of criminal punishment; only if the only objective of
3

HR 322 IH

1 punishment were incapacitation could it be argued

2 that living conditions should be as comfortable in

3 prison as outside.’’ Davenport v. DeRobertis, 844

4 F.2d 1310, 1313 (7th Cir. section 1988).

5 (5) Since 1960, the average total State correc6 tional expenditures per inmate have increased almost

7 twice as fast as median income and more than twice

8 as fast as the poverty threshold.

9 (6) Expenditures on prisons in excess of levels

10 necessary to meet constitutionally mandated condi11 tions of confinement increase the cost of building

12 and administering institutions, thereby diverting

13 funds which could be used to expand current prison

14 capacity throughout the country. Additional prison

15 beds are desperately needed to stop the early release

16 of repeat and violent offenders due to insufficient

17 prison capacity.

18 (7) Public funds that could go to assist the law19 abiding poor are being expended to provide facilities

20 and services for inmates at a level exceeding the

21 minimum standard of living for the law-abiding poor

22 and exceeding the conditions mandated by the Con23 stitution.

24 (8) There is a need for the Congress, on behalf

25 of the people, to express and codify a national stand-
4

HR 322 IH

1 ard of minimum decency for prison conditions. In2 mates should not be entitled, by virtue of their im3 prisonment, to live better than law-abiding persons

4 living at the poverty guideline level of income as de5 termined by the Department of Health and Human

6 Services.

7 (9) Federal courts have been besieged by frivo8 lous litigation brought by inmates incarcerated in in9 stitutions. Lacking a legislative expression of the

10 contemporary standards of decency relating to pris11 on conditions, Federal courts have become unduly

12 involved in the micromanagement of correctional fa13 cilities, a role which the Supreme Court recognizes

14 that courts are ill equipped to handle and which is

15 better left to the expertise of prison administrators,

16 Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396. 404–405

17 (1974).

18 (10) Courts, upon a finding that the conditions

19 of an institution are unconstitutional, have ignored

20 the constitutional limitations on the judiciary and

21 the principles of federalism by issuing injunctions

22 which mandate changes in State prison systems

23 which far exceed what the constitution requires.

24 Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318 (M.D. Ala. 1976)

25 (Injunction with detailed instructions for administer-
5

HR 322 IH

1 ing the prison, mandating that each inmate have 60

2 square feet of living space, visitation privileges at

3 least once a week in a comfortable visitation area, a

4 meaningful job and the opportunity to participate in

5 basic educational programs and vocational training

6 designed to teach a marketable skill; that the admin7 istrators hire a food service supervisor with a mini8 mum of a bachelor’s degree in dietetics, a nutrition

9 consultant who is a registered dietitian and a full10 time recreational director with at least a bachelor’s

11 degree in recreational or physical training); Jones v.

12 Wittenburg, 330 F. Supp. 707 (N.D. Ohio 1971)

13 (Injunction which included mandatory salary in14 creases for jailers who completed community college

15 job related courses at county expense, the establish16 ment of work or study release programs for inmates

17 serving sentences, limitation on Sheriff’s ability to

18 prohibit the possession of certain reading materials

19 by inmates unless they clearly came within the legal

20 definition of pornography, and a requirement that

21 the jail be painted with light-colored, washable

22 enamel paint).

23 (11) Sound principles of federalism require that

24 before a condition, policy, or practice at an institu25 tion be declared unconstitutional, that a State ex-
6

HR 322 IH

1 haustion requirement be respected, that more than

2 one sitting Federal judge ought to be required to

3 hear the claim presented, and that no prison condi4 tion should be enjoined before the State has a fair

5 opportunity to take remedial action.

6 (12) The Attorney General possesses the exper7 tise necessary to effectively litigate systematic, insti8 tution-wide abuses on behalf of a class of inmates

9 and eliminate repetitive and often frivolous in

10 propria persona suits that unduly burden the court

11 system.

12 (13) There is a need to ensure that allegations

13 regarding unconstitutional conditions of confinement

14 are made with particularity so that lawsuits may be

15 more specifically framed and particularly pled to en16 sure that institutional administrators are given no17 tice of the nature and extent of the condition alleged

18 to be unconstitutional.

19 (14) The efforts by the Department of Justice

20 to ensure that constitutionally mandated standards

21 for prison conditions are efficiently and effectively

22 enforced have been previously recognized in the en23 actment of section 1997 of title 42, United States

24 Code, et seq.

25 (b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are:
7

HR 322 IH

1 (1) To articulate an objective national standard

2 for measuring the minimum decency of prison condi3 tions.

4 (2) To ensure that criminal punishments reflect

5 the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for

6 the law, provide just punishment, afford adequate

7 deterrence, and protect the public from further

8 crimes by requiring, inter alia, that inmates do not

9 live better than law-abiding persons living at the

10 poverty level.

11 (3) To ensure that state governments are re12 quired to spend only that amount necessary to

13 achieve the minimum standard for conditions of con14 finement mandated by the Constitution.

15 (4) To ensure that Federal courts require only

16 that prison conditions do not constitute the unneces17 sary and wanton infliction of pain due to the delib18 erate indifference of institutional administrators

19 such that inmates are deprived of the minimum civ20 ilized measure of life’s necessities. Hudson v. McMil21 lan, 117 L. Ed. 2d 156 (1992). Wilson v. Seiter,

22 115 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1991), Whitley v. Albers, 475

23 U.S. 312 (1986), and Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S.

24 337 (1981). Helling et al. v. McKinney, (United
8

HR 322 IH

1 States Supreme Court, No. 91–1958, June 18,

2 1993).

3 (5) To require the exhaustion of administrative

4 remedies and accompanying State judicial review

5 prior to any Federal court challenge to conditions of

6 confinement of an institution such that States are

7 permitted a full and fair opportunity to remedy un8 constitutional conditions, policies, or practices.

9 (6) To protect sound principles of federalism by

10 requiring that before a condition at an institution be

11 declared unconstitutional, more than one Federal

12 judge be required to hear the claim presented, and

13 that no State condition will be enjoined before the

14 State has a fair opportunity to take remedial action.

15 (7) To ensure that the Federal Government is

16 permitted an opportunity to review inmate chal17 lenges to institutional conditions of confinement by

18 requiring the submission of a petition requesting ac19 tion pursuant to section 1997 of title 42, United

20 States Code to the Attorney General of the United

21 States.

22 (8) To limit the number of frivolous lawsuits

23 filed in Federal court by inmates.
9

HR 322 IH

1 SEC. 103. AMENDING SECTION 1988 OF TITLE 42, UNITED

2 STATES CODE ET SEQ.

3 Section 1988 of title 42, United States Code is

4 amended by adding paragraphs (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i),

5 (j), (k), and (l) as follows:

6 ‘‘(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a)

7 of this section, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and

8 any other provision of law, any action challenging condi9 tions of confinement in an institution filed on behalf of

10 other inmates or as a class action must be brought by the

11 Attorney General unless the requirements of section

12 1997e(b) of this title have been met. Any action brought

13 by an inmate in an individual capacity shall have no collat14 eral estoppel effect other than as between the parties to

15 the action. Upon declination of the initial intervention re16 quest by the inmate, and if requested by a State, the At17 torney General may intervene on behalf of institutional ad18 ministrators.

19 ‘‘(e) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this section

20 the court shall not award attorney’s fees in any action

21 challenging conditions of confinement of an institution,

22 unless the litigation results in the issuance of an injunc23 tion under the conditions authorized in paragraph (j) or

24 unless the court awards attorney’s fees as a sanction for

25 filing a frivolous suit pursuant to paragraph (g).
10

HR 322 IH

1 ‘‘(f) In any litigation challenging conditions of con2 finement a court shall not grant any relief unless the con3 ditions challenged constitute the unnecessary and wanton

4 infliction of pain due to the deliberate indifference of insti5 tutional administrators such that inmates are deprived of

6 the minimum civilized measure of life’s necessities. If the

7 institution makes a per inmate expenditure equal to or ex8 ceeding the poverty guideline level there is a presumption

9 that institutional administrators are not deliberately indif10 ferent to the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain

11 and the deprivation of the minimum civilized measure of

12 life’s necessities which may be rebutted only by clear and

13 convincing evidence to the contrary. Failure to make such

14 expenditures does not give rise to a presumption that the

15 conditions of confinement of an institution are unconstitu16 tional.

17 ‘‘(g) Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a

18 party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at

19 least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual

20 name, whose address shall be stated. A party who is not

21 represented by an attorney shall sign the party’s pleading,

22 motion or other paper and state the party’s address. The

23 signature of an attorney or the party constitutes a certifi24 cation that the signer has carefully read the pleading, mo-
11

HR 322 IH

1 tion or other paper and, based on a reasonable inquiry,

2 believes all of the following:

3 ‘‘(1) It is well grounded in fact.

4 ‘‘(2) It is warranted by existing case law or

5 there is a good faith argument for the extension,

6 modification or reversal of existing law.

7 ‘‘(3) It is not interposed for any improper pur8 pose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary

9 delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

10 If any pleading, motion or other paper is signed in viola11 tion of the certification provisions of this subsection, the

12 court, on its own motion or the motion of the other party

13 and after a hearing and appropriate findings of fact, shall

14 impose on the signer who verified it, a proper sanction

15 to deter this conduct in the future, which may include the

16 reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing of the

17 pleading, motion or other paper, including a reasonable

18 attorney’s fee.

19 ‘‘(h) Any action arising under section 1983 of this

20 title challenging the conditions of confinement of an insti21 tution shall be heard by a three judge district court

22 empaneled pursuant to section 28 of title 2284, United

23 States Code.

24 ‘‘(i) No Court of the United States empaneled pursu25 ant to section 28 of title 2284, United States Code may
12

HR 322 IH

1 issue an injunction in an action arising under section 1983

2 of title 42, United States Code challenging conditions of

3 confinement of an institution absent a showing of extraor4 dinary circumstances or unless institutional administra5 tors have failed, after a reasonable amount of time, to ad6 here to a written declaratory judgment issued pursuant

7 to section 2281 of title 28, United States Code finding

8 that a condition of confinement is unconstitutional.

9 ‘‘(j) Any injunctive relief granted under paragraph (i)

10 of this section shall be limited to the minimum relief nec11 essary to remedy any unconstitutional condition of con12 finement.

13 ‘‘(k) For purposes of this section, the following defini14 tions apply:

15 ‘‘(1) ‘Poverty guideline level’ means the dollar

16 allowance in the poverty guideline for additional

17 family members in the largest households, as estab18 lished by the United States Department of Health

19 and Human Services.

20 ‘‘(2) ‘Conditions of confinement’ means aspects

21 of confinement which include food, shelter, clothing,

22 medical care, goods, services, and programs of an in23 stitution, but excludes aspects relating to institu24 tional security.
13

HR 322 IH

1 ‘‘(3) ‘Institution’ means an institution as de2 fined in section 1997(1)(B)(ii) of title 42, United

3 States Code.

4 ‘‘(4) ‘Inmate’ means a person committed to the

5 custody of an institution.

6 ‘‘(5) ‘Per inmate expenditure’ means an institu7 tion’s allocated expenditure for providing food, shel8 ter, clothing, goods, services and programs, exclud9 ing costs specifically related to medical care and in10 stitutional security in the 12 month period preceding

11 the date of the alleged violation, divided by the aver12 age number of inmates confined in the institution

13 for the same 12 month period.

14 ‘‘(l)(1) Upon motion of a party at any time, a court

15 empaneled under section 1988(h) of this title may conduct

16 a hearing on whether an order or decree entered as a re17 sult of any action arising under section 1983 challenging

18 the constitutionality of conditions of confinement, should

19 be modified due to any of the following circumstances—

20 ‘‘(A) changed factual circumstances affecting

21 the operation of the order or decree, whether or not

22 foreseeable;

23 ‘‘(B) a change or clarification of the relevant

24 law, whether or not foreseeable;
14

HR 322 IH

1 ‘‘(C) a succession in office of an official respon2 sible for having consented to a decree;

3 ‘‘(D) the government’s financial constraints or

4 any other matter affecting public safety or the pub5 lic interest; and

6 ‘‘(E) any ground provided in rule 60(b) of the

7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

8 ‘‘(2) The court shall conduct such a hearing if the

9 motion was filed more than one year after the date of the

10 order or the decree or one year after the date on which

11 the last modification hearing was conducted, whichever is

12 later.

13 ‘‘(3) If the court denies a motion to modify an order

14 or consent decree under subsection (a) of this section, the

15 court shall make a written finding that the relief provided

16 in the order or decree, as of the date of the decision, is

17 no greater than the minimum required to bring the condi18 tions of confinement into substantial compliance with the

19 United States Constitution.’’.

20 SEC. 104. AMENDING SECTION 1997a OF TITLE 42, UNITED

21 STATES CODE.

22 Paragraph (a) of section 1997a of title 42, United

23 States Code is amended to provide as follows:

24 ‘‘(a) Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable

25 cause to believe that any State or political subdivision of
15

HR 322 IH

1 a State, official, employee, or agent thereof, or other per2 son acting on behalf of a State or political subdivision of

3 a State is subjecting persons residing in or confined to

4 an institution as defined in section 2 (42 U.S.C. 1997)

5 to egregious or flagrant conditions which deprive such per6 sons of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or

7 protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States

8 causing such persons to suffer grievous harm, and that

9 such deprivation is pursuant to a pattern or practice of

10 resistance to the full enjoyment of such rights, privileges,

11 or immunities, the Attorney General, for or in the name

12 of the United States, may institute a civil action in any

13 appropriate United States district court against such

14 party for such equitable relief as may be appropriate to

15 insure the minimum corrective measures necessary to in16 sure the full enjoyment of such rights, privileges, or immu17 nities, except that such equitable relief shall be available

18 under this Act to persons residing in or confined to an

19 institution as defined in section 1997(1)(B)(ii) of title 42,

20 United States Code, only insofar as such persons are sub21 jected to conditions which deprive them of rights, privi22 leges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitu23 tion of the United States, and only to the extent permitted

24 as set forth in sections 1988(i) and (j) of title 42, United

25 States Code. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the At-
16

HR 322 IH

1 torney General from intervening on behalf of prison offi2 cials as set forth in section 1988(d) of title 42, United

3 States Code, as amended, if requested by the State.’’.

4 (b) Notwithstanding section 1997(a) of title 42,

5 United States Code or section 1997c(a)(1). The Attorney

6 General shall not initiate or intervene on behalf of an in7 mate in an action alleging a violation of the eighth amend8 ment of the United States Constitution unless the Attor9 ney General finds reasonable cause to believe that such

10 persons are subjected to conditions which constitute the

11 unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain due to the delib12 erate indifference of institutional administrators such that

13 said persons are deprived of the minimum civilized meas14 ure of life’s necessities.

15 SEC. 105. AMENDING PORTIONS OF SECTION 1997e OF

16 TITLE 42, UNITED STATES CODE.

17 Paragraph (a) of section 1997e of title 42, United

18 States Code is amended to provide as follows:

19 ‘‘(a) APPLICABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE REM20 EDIES.—

21 ‘‘(1) In any action arising under section 1983

22 of this title which is filed by an inmate the court

23 shall require exhaustion of the administrative rem24 edies as described in this section.’’.
17

HR 322 IH

1 (b) Any action arising under section 1983, brought

2 by an inmate alleging a violation of constitutional rights

3 relating to the conditions of confinement of an institution

4 may not be maintained unless the inmate has—

5 (1) exhausted any remedies available in the in6 stitution and the courts of the State, unless it ap7 pears that there is an absence of available state cor8 rective process or that circumstances exist which

9 render such process ineffective to protect the rights

10 of the inmate, and

11 (2) petitioned the Attorney General of the Unit12 ed States by registered mail to institute an action

13 for, or to intervene on behalf of the inmate and any

14 other prisoner similarly situated and the Attorney

15 General has not so intervened within 120 days of re16 ceipt of the petition or has declined, in writing, to

17 intervene,

18 after which the inmate may pursue his remedy.

19 (c) Notwithstanding any other statute or rule of civil

20 procedure, any action arising under section 1983 of title

21 42, United States Code, challenging conditions of confine22 ment in an institution, must state with particularity—

23 (1) the exhaustion of remedies or reasons ex24 haustion has not been pursued,
18

HR 322 IH

1 (2) any applicable decision of the Attorney Gen2 eral under subsection (a)(2)(ii) above,

3 (3) the specific constitutional right alleged to

4 have been violated and all specific facts supporting

5 the allegation,

6 (4) the specific nature of the condition of con7 finement and the manner in which the institutional

8 administrators have been deliberately indifferent to

9 the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain such

10 that the inmate has been deprived of the minimum

11 civilized standard of life’s necessities, or

12 (v) the relief requested.

13 (d) An inmate shall not be deemed to have exhausted

14 the remedies available in the courts of the State if he has

15 the right under the law of the State to raise, by any avail16 able procedure, the question presented.

17 (e) In any proceeding instituted in a Federal court

18 for relief alleging a violation of constitutional rights aris19 ing from conditions of confinement of an institution, a de20 termination after a hearing on the merits of a factual

21 issue, made by a State court of competent jurisdiction in

22 a proceeding to which the inmate and the State, or an

23 officer or agent thereof, were parties, evidenced by a writ24 ten finding, written opinion, or other reliable and adequate

25 written indicia, shall be presumed to be correct, unless the
19

HR 322 IH

1 inmate shall establish or it shall otherwise appear, or the

2 respondent shall admit—

3 (1) that the merits of the factual dispute were

4 not resolved in the State court hearing;

5 (2) that the fact finding procedure employed by

6 the State court was not adequate to afford a full

7 and fair hearing;

8 (3) that the material facts were not adequately

9 developed at the State court hearing;

10 (4) that the State court lacked jurisdiction over

11 the subject matter or over the inmate in the State

12 court proceeding;

13 (5) that the inmate did not receive a full, fair,

14 and adequate hearing in the State court proceeding;

15 (6) that the applicant was otherwise denied due

16 process of law in the State court proceeding; or

17 (7) unless that part of the record of the State

18 court proceeding in which the determination of such

19 factual issue was made, pertinent to a determination

20 of the sufficiency of the evidence to support such

21 factual determination and the Federal court on a

22 consideration of such part of the record as a whole

23 concludes that such factual determinations are not

24 fairly supported by the record;
20

HR 322 IH

1 And in an evidentiary hearing in the proceeding in the

2 Federal court, when due proof of such factual determina3 tion has been made, unless the existence of one or more

4 of the circumstances respectively set forth in paragraphs

5 (i)–(vi) inclusive is shown by the inmate, otherwise ap6 pears, or is admitted by the respondent, or unless the

7 court concludes pursuant to the provisions of paragraph

8 (vii) that the record in the State court proceeding, consid9 ered as a whole does not fairly support such factual deter10 mination, the burden shall rest upon the inmate to estab11 lish by convincing evidence that the factual determination

12 by the State court was erroneous.

13 (f) If the inmate challenges the sufficiency of the evi14 dence adduced in such State court proceeding to support

15 the State court’s determination of a factual issue made

16 therein, the inmate shall produce that part of the record

17 pertinent to a determination of the sufficiency of the evi18 dence to support such determination.

19 (g) A copy of the official records of the State court,

20 duly certified by the clerk of such court to be true and

21 correct copy of a finding, judicial opinion, or other reliable

22 indicia showing such a factual determination by the State

23 court shall be admissible in the Federal court proceeding.
21

HR 322 IH

1 SEC. 106. DELETING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SECTION 1994f

2 OF TITLE 42, UNITED STATES CODE.

3 Subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 1997e, title

4 42, United States Code are deleted.

5 SEC. 107. ELIMINATING EARLY RELEASE OF PRISONERS—

6 SCOPE OF JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT.

7 Section 4354 of title 18, United States Code, is

8 amended by adding at the end the following:

9 ‘‘(A) The following conditions shall not be

10 deemed ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ of pris11 oners—

12 ‘‘(1) the absence or failure to provide ac13 cess to cable TV or other entertainment to pris14 oners,

15 ‘‘(2) the absence or failure to provide ac16 cess to recreational facilities such as basketball

17 courts, gyms, or other areas,

18 ‘‘(3) the quality of food preparation, so

19 long as the appropriate medical official certifies

20 that the food and water meet minimal nutri21 tional standards to sustain life,

22 ‘‘(4) the number of prison officials in a fa23 cility or their training or qualifications,

24 ‘‘(5) placement of more than one prisoner

25 in a cell,
22

HR 322 IH

1 ‘‘(6) defects in the style, type or condition

2 of prison clothing,

3 ‘‘(7) age or conditions of the prison struc4 ture, so long as it remains structurally sound,

5 or

6 ‘‘(8) absence of any other luxury or amen7 ity.’’.

8 TITLE II—REPEAL OF THE BAN ON SEMI9 AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS AND

10 THE BAN ON LARGE CAPACITY AMMU11 NITION FEEDING DEVICES

12 SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

13 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restoration of Certain

14 Second Amendment Rights Act’’.

15 SEC. 202. REPEAL OF THE BAN ON SEMIAUTOMATIC AS16 SAULT WEAPONS AND THE BAN ON LARGE

17 CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

18 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 922 of title 18, United

19 States Code, is amended by striking subsections (v) and

20 (w) and by striking the appendix.

21 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL.—

22 (1) Section 921(a) of such title is amended by

23 striking paragraph (31).

24 (2) Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title is amend25 ed by striking ‘‘(r), (v),’’.
23

HR 322 IH

1 (3) Section 923(i) of such title is amended by

2 striking the last 2 sentences.

3 (4) Section 110104 of the Violent Crime Con4 trol and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is hereby re5 pealed.

6 TITLE III—ENHANCED GUN PENALTIES

7 SEC. 301. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR PERSONS CON8 VICTED OF USING OR CARRYING A FIREARM

9 DURING AND IN RELATION TO A FELONY.

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 924(c) of title 18, United

11 States Code, is amended to read as follows:

12 ‘‘(c) Whoever, during and in relation to a crime that

13 is a felony (including a felony which provides for an en14 hanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly

15 or dangerous weapon or device) for which he may be pros16 ecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a

17 firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for

18 such crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years, and

19 if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled

20 shotgun, to imprisonment for 10 years, and if the firearm

21 is a machinegun or destructive device, or is equipped with

22 a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to imprisonment for

23 30 years. In the case of the second or subsequent convic24 tion of the person under this subsection, the person shall

25 be sentenced to life imprisonment without release. Not-
24

HR 322 IH

1 withstanding any other provision of law, a term of impris2 onment imposed under this subsection shall not run con3 currently with any other term of imprisonment including

4 that imposed for the crime in which the firearm was used

5 or carried.’’.

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 101(a)(43)

7 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

8 1101(a)(43)) is amended by inserting ‘‘(as in effect imme9 diately before the enactment of the Gun Crime Control

10 Act)’’ after ‘‘18’’ the first place such term appears.

11 SEC. 302. MANDATORY MINIMUM SERVICE FOR UNLAWFUL

12 POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CONVICTED

13 FELON, FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE, ADDICT OR

14 UNLAWFUL USER OF CONTROLLED SUB15 STANCE, OR TRANSFEROR OR RECEIVER OF

16 STOLEN FIREARM.

17 Section 924(a) of title 18, United States Code, is

18 amended by adding at the end the following:

19 ‘‘(6) Whoever knowingly possesses a firearm in viola20 tion of paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 922(g), or

21 in violation of subsection (i) of (j), shall be imprisoned

22 not less than 5 years. Notwithstanding any other provision

23 of law, the court shall not place on probation or suspend

24 the sentence of any person convicted under this para25 graph, nor shall the term of imprisonment imposed under
25

HR 322 IH

1 this paragraph run concurrently with any other term of

2 imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law.’’.

3 SEC. 303. INCREASE IN GENERAL PENALTY FOR VIOLATION

4 OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS.

5 Section 924(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is

6 amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘not more than $5,000’’ and in8 serting ‘‘under this title’’; and

9 (2) by striking ‘‘five’’ and inserting ‘‘10’’.

Æ

HR 322 IH——2