U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–333 PDF 2006

FIREARM COMMERCE MODERNIZATION ACT, AND

THE NICS IMPROVEMENT ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 1384 and H.R. 1415

MAY 3, 2006

Serial No. 109–107

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Chief Counsel 

DAVID BRINK, Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Counsel 

JASON CERVENAK, Full Committee Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 3, 2006

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 1

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 2

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Phil Gingrey, M.D., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Georgia 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 4

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5

The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8

The Honorable Carolyn McCarthy, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 9

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 25

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas .................................................................. 26

Letter from the Brady Center for Gun Violence to the Honorable F. James 

Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 

the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 27

(1)

FIREARM COMMERCE MODERNIZATION ACT, 

AND THE NICS IMPROVEMENT ACT 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Howard 

Coble (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. COBLE. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 

We’re going to—let me set the ground rules for us here. Mr. Scott 

and I have two bills to mark up today. And once we get a working 

quorum, we will attend to that and suspend the hearing before us. 

But until that occurs, we welcome each of you, as well as our 

three witnesses, to this hearing to examine the need to amend our 

Nation’s gun laws. 

Today, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 

Security is conducting a legislative hearing on H.R. 1384, the ‘‘Firearm Commerce Modernization Act,’’ and on H.R. 1415, the ‘‘National Instant Criminal Background Check System’’—commonly 

known as NICS—‘‘Improvement Act of 2005.’’

H.R. 1384 would remove restrictions on the interstate sale of 

firearms. H.R. 1415 purports to update existing laws governing 

interstate firearm sales and ensure all States are providing complete, accurate, and updated data to the NICS system. 

Under current law, federally licensed firearm dealers may make 

rifle or shotgun sales to residents of other States in their States so 

long as the sale complies with the laws of the State of the seller 

and the purchaser. 

Handguns, however, are treated differently. When a handgun is 

purchased in a store, the dealer is required to ship the handgun 

to another federally licensed firearms dealer in the purchaser’s 

home State, where the purchaser can subsequently pick up the 

gun. 

This shipping process does not confer any additional security review or background verification and extends the chain of custody 

to the mail and another firearms dealer. 

H.R. 1384 would further permit dealers to sell handguns to residents of another State so long as the following conditions are satisfied. One, the sale conforms with the laws of both States. Two, the 

sale is in person. And three, the purchaser must pass a background 

check. 

2

As we all know, failure to comply can result in Federal criminal 

charges against the dealer or the purchaser, regardless of their intent. 

H.R. 1384 would also permit federally licensed firearm dealers to 

transfer firearms to other federally licensed firearm dealers at gun 

shows. Licensed dealers, many of which—or many of whom are 

small businessmen or small business women, who have all submitted to thorough and lengthy background checks, are currently 

required to ship firearms from their business premises. 

Requiring dealers to ship firearms rather than transfer possession in person confers no additional Federal tracking or registration requirements, nor does it add any additional security or background review. 

Finally, H.R. 1415 provides funds and incentive for States to update and automate records provided to NICS, particularly records 

regarding criminal dispositions, mental illness determinations, restraining orders, and domestic violence misdemeanor convictions. 

NICS is operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and is 

used to conduct background checks of firearms purchasers before 

they are permitted to buy a firearm. When an individual enters a 

gun dealership to purchase a firearm, the dealer must perform a 

background check which utilizes the NICS call center, a state-ofthe-art computer facility, located in Clarksburg, West Virginia. 

I look forward to learning more about these bills and thank our 

witnesses for participating in today’s hearing. And I am now 

pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman and my friend 

from Virginia, the Ranking Member, Mr. Bobby Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I’m pleased to join you in convening the hearing on H.R. 

1384 and 1415. While I fully support 1415, which provides funds 

and incentives to States to more fully and efficiently update their 

criminal records, I have concerns about H.R. 1384. 

The purpose of the restrictions that 1384 will remove is to limit 

opportunities for getting guns in the hands of prohibited people 

through straw purchases or other ways due to an overwhelmed system. 

Although I support 1415, the need for the bill clearly tells us that 

the guns are currently being distributed to people who would not 

get them if criminal and other disqualifying records were more current and complete, which is the aspiration of the bill. 

Given this reality, we should not be making the job of preventing 

handguns from getting in the hands of the wrong person more difficult before we fix the data system on which we rely so heavily to 

stop such transactions. 

Moreover, I’m concerned that this legislation would make it impossible for States like Virginia to have any meaningful enforcement of its ‘‘one gun a month’’ laws, either on its citizens or others. 

Right now, out-of-State address documentation effectively prevents 

anyone from leaving or coming into Virginia and avoiding the impact of its ‘‘one gun a month limitation.’’

With this bill, it would not be feasible to police the requirement, 

especially at gun shows on weekends, and it’s unlikely that people 

in other States would even be familiar with Virginia’s ‘‘one gun a 

month law.’’

3

So, Mr. Chairman, I’ll listen to the testimony of our witnesses 

carefully to see how 1384 addresses my concerns, and I look forward to working with you to make sure we continue to make it difficult for guns to get in the hands of the wrong people, particularly 

handguns, while not unduly restricting the right of law-abiding and 

otherwise eligible persons to own firearms. 

And I also want to welcome—join you in welcoming our colleagues who will be testifying today. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, Mr. Scott. 

The lady and gentlemen, as you all know, it’s the practice of the 

Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses. So if you all would please 

stand and raise your right hands? 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. COBLE. You may be seated. Let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

We have three distinguished witnesses with us today and strike 

that—any other opening statements from the other Members of the 

Subcommittee will be submitted for the record without objection. 

[The statements follow in the Appendix] 

Mr. COBLE. And we’ve been joined by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green. Good to have you with us, Mark. 

We have three distinguished witnesses with us today. Our first 

witness is the Honorable Phil Gingrey, M.D., from the 11th Congressional District in Georgia, who was elected to the Congress in 

2002. 

Representative Gingrey currently serves on the House Rules 

Committee. In his first term of Congress, he served on the Armed 

Services Committee, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the Science Committee. 

Prior to his decision to run for Congress, Representative Gingrey 

spent 26 years as a medical practitioner and delivered over 5,200 

babies. He is a graduate of the Medical College of Georgia and 

Georgia Tech. 

Our second witness is the Honorable Steve King. Representative 

King represents or serves Iowa’s 5th Congressional District and is 

in his second term. 

Representative King started his own business, the King Construction Company, in 1975 and served in the Iowa State Senate 

for 6 years prior to coming to the Congress. He currently sits on 

the Judiciary Committee, the Small Business Committee, and the 

Agriculture Committee. 

Representative King studied math and science at the Northwest 

Missouri State University. In what town is Northwest Missouri, 

Steve? 

Mr. KING. Maryville, Missouri. 

Mr. COBLE. Where? 

Mr. KING. Maryville, Missouri. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

And our third witness is the Honorable Carolyn McCarthy. Mrs. 

McCarthy serves New York’s 4th Congressional District and is currently in her fifth term in the Congress. During her nearly 10 

years in the Congress, Representative McCarthy has diligently 

fought against gun violence, the tragic effects of which she felt with 

the murder of her husband in 1993. 

4

Representative McCarthy served on the Education and the Workforce Committee and the Financial Services Committee. And I 

think for about 3 decades, Mrs. McCarthy, you worked as a nurse. 

So you and Representative Gingrey, if anyone has any medical 

problems, we are able to satisfy those needs this morning. 

Now, folks, as you all know, we operate under the 5-minute rule 

here, and Mr. Scott and I apply that rule to ourselves as well. So 

when you see that amber light up here in front of you, you’ll know 

that the ice on which you’re skating is getting thin. And the red 

light, of course, indicates that 5 minutes have elapsed. 

Representative Gingrey, why don’t we start with you? 

THE HONORABLE PHIL GINGREY, M.D., A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Dr. GINGREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. 

I do thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of 

my bill, H.R. 1384, the ‘‘Firearms Commerce Modernization Act.’’

I introduced this legislation after I learned about some of the severe and, quite frankly, obsolete restrictions that Federal law imposes on businesses and individuals who want to sell firearms legally through our Nation’s interstate economy. 

In general, since 1968, it has been illegal for any person without 

a Federal firearms license to buy or sell handguns across State 

lines. Licensed dealers cannot sell firearms, except certain collectibles, at a gun show outside of their own State. 

Even between dealers, who go through a thorough background 

check to get a dealer’s license, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives does not allow face-to-face transfers. So dealers who agree on a sale must go back to their stores and ship the 

firearm. 

Gun theft is a major source of the firearms used in crime, and 

it is senseless under current law to make a licensed dealer ship a 

firearm when they can make a legal and documented transaction 

at the time of purchase. 

My bill would do three simple things, Mr. Chairman. Firstly, it 

would make it legal for a licensed dealer to sell a handgun to a 

resident of another State as long as they do the sale in person, and 

they obey the laws of both States as well as Federal law. 

And secondly, it would allow dealers to do business at out-ofState gun shows. Again, they would have to obey the laws of the 

State they were visiting—this addresses Ranking Member Scott’s 

concerns—as well as all the Federal laws and regulations they normally obey. 

It would allow, thirdly, dealers to transfer firearms directly to 

one another, instead of risking theft or loss during shipment. 

The reason we can make these changes today is really quite simple. It’s based on technology. These restrictions were imposed in 

1968, when the only way for a dealer to conduct a background 

check on an out-of-State buyer was by sending a certified letter to 

the police in the buyer’s home State, waiting for a reply, and then 

waiting a week before making the sale. That was 1968 technology. 

But today, dealers can request background checks with a phone 

call or online by either contacting the FBI directly or by contacting 

5

a State police agency that uses the FBI’s database. They get an answer in seconds and with an exceptional degree of accuracy. 

This routine applies one way or another to every gun sold by 

every dealer in every State. And we’re going to improve this database with Representative McCarthy’s bill. 

Just to show you how far the technology has come, any teenager 

can go online today and order a $500 laptop computer that carries 

more computing power than NASA carried on the first space shuttle 25 years ago. It costs less, and the teenager does not have to 

be a rocket scientist—no pun intended—to use it. 

And if you bought a new cell phone in the last year, you’re probably carrying more memory, programmability, and computing 

power in your pocket than AT&T had in all its long distance systems in the late 1960’s. 

So, with all of these advances, there is every reason to allow lawabiding individuals to buy handguns in other States, just as we 

currently allow for long guns. The key point is that anyone purchasing a firearm would, by Federal law, still have to go through 

the background check, and they would still have to obey the laws 

of their home State as well as the State where the sale takes place, 

including Virginia. 

And that last point is very important because I know there are 

some arguments that this legislation bypasses strict or very strict 

certain State laws. And those arguments are just not true. 

If you are from California or Massachusetts or New York, you 

would still have to obey your own State laws before you could buy 

a handgun at home or anywhere else. That would include licenses, 

waiting periods, bans on certain kinds of guns, or any other restrictions. And if a dealer is not confident he can comply with those 

laws, no one can force him or her to make the sale. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe H.R. 1384 is a reasonable piece of legislation that helps get rid of some restrictions that we just do not 

need anymore and, frankly, can be downright dangerous. And I appreciate your time and effort in considering this legislation. 

I thank you and the Members of the Subcommittee, and I would 

be happy at the appropriate time to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gingrey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today in support of my bill, H.R. 1384, the Firearms Commerce Modernization Act. 

I introduced this legislation after I learned about some of the severe, and frankly 

obsolete, restrictions that federal law imposes on businesses and individuals who 

want to sell firearms legally through our nation’s interstate economy. 

In general, since 1968, it has been illegal for any person without a federal firearms license to buy or sell handguns across state lines. Licensed dealers cannot sell 

firearms (except for certain collectibles) at a gun show outside their own state. Even 

between dealers, who go through a thorough background check to get a dealer’s license, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives does not allow faceto-face transfers, so dealers who agree on a sale must go back to their stores and 

ship the firearm. Gun theft is a major source of the firearms used in crime and it 

is senseless under current law to make a licensed dealer ship a firearm when they 

can make a legal and documented transaction at the time of purchase. 

My bill would do three simple things:

6

1. It would make it legal for a licensed dealer to sell a handgun to a resident 

of another state, as long as they do the sale in person and obey the laws of 

both states, as well as federal law.

2. It would allow dealers to do business at out-of-state gun shows. Again, they 

would have to obey the laws of the state they were visiting, as well as all 

the federal laws and regulations they normally obey.

3. It would allow dealers to transfer firearms directly to one another, instead 

of risking theft or loss during shipment.

The reason we can make these changes today is quite simple: technology. These 

restrictions were imposed in 1968, when the only way for a dealer to conduct a background check on an out of state buyer was by sending a certified letter to the police 

in the buyer’s home state, waiting for a reply, and then waiting a week before making the sale. 

Today, dealers can request background checks with a phone call or online by either contacting the FBI directly or by contacting a state police agency that uses the 

FBI’s databases. They get an answer in seconds, and with an exceptional degree of 

accuracy. This routine applies one way or another to every gun sold, by every dealer, in every state. 

Just to show you how far the technology has come, any teenager can go online 

today and order a $500 laptop computer that carries more computing power than 

NASA carried on the first space shuttle 25 years ago. It costs less, and the teenager 

does not have to be a rocket scientist to use it. And, if you bought a new cell phone 

in the last year, you are probably carrying more memory, programmability and computing power in your pocket than AT&T had in all its long-distance systems in the 

1960s. 

With all these advances, there is every reason to allow law-abiding individuals to 

buy handguns in other states, just as we currently allow for long guns. The key 

point is that anyone purchasing a firearm would by federal law still have to go 

through the background check and they would still have to obey the laws of their 

home state, as well as the state where the sale takes place. 

That last point is important, because I know there are some arguments that this 

legislation bypasses strict state laws. Those arguments are just not true. If you are 

from California, or Massachusetts, or New York, you would still have to obey your 

own state’s laws before you could buy a handgun at home or anywhere else. That 

could include licenses, waiting periods, bans on certain kinds of guns, or other restrictions. And if a dealer is not confident he can comply with those laws, no one 

can force him to make the sale. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe H.R. 1384 is a reasonable piece of legislation that helps 

get rid of some restrictions that we just do not need any more. I appreciate your 

time and effort in considering this legislation. Thank you.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Representative Gingrey. 

Representative King. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Scott 

and Members of the Subcommittee. Thanks for the opportunity to 

testify on the Firearms Commerce Modernization Act. 

The key focus of this bill is to remove unnecessary Federal regulations on interstate firearms transactions. Some of those restrictions have outlived their usefulness, based on today’s background 

technology. Other restrictions are based on legal interpretations by 

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. These 

restrictions may actually create a greater risk of guns falling into 

the wrong hands. 

H.R. 1384 would remove restrictions on the interstate sale of 

firearms as long as the sales otherwise comply with Federal law 

and the laws of the buyer’s and seller’s States. This would include 

the Federal background check requirement as well as a host of 

State restrictions. 

7

I’d like to discuss why this bill is especially relevant to my district and many other rural areas in this country. I represent a 

large area in western Iowa, and it happens to border on four other 

States. 

We don’t have a lot of big cities in my district. In fact, we don’t 

have a single big city in my district. What we do have are a lot 

of rural residents who live in Iowa, but they do a lot of their shopping and other personal business in another State. 

Many of the residents of my district also own firearms. And in 

this case, the Federal restrictions on interstate firearms transactions really create a burden for my constituents and those in the 

surrounding States. 

Unfortunately, it’s quite possible that one of my law-abiding constituents might not be able to find a gun he wants locally, but 

might find it for sale in, say, Sioux Falls or Omaha or maybe Kansas City. In fact, we allow exactly this type of sale now, but only 

for rifles and shotguns. 

All H.R. 1384 would do is extend that to handguns. And again, 

we’re only talking about law-abiding people. All of the sales would 

be subject to Federal and State law and would only be carried out 

after a background check on the buyer. 

On that point, I’d like to point out just how limited H.R. 1384 

is, and my State’s a good example. Both Iowa and all the States 

surrounding it have restrictions on handgun sales above and beyond the requirements of Federal law. Under H.R. 1384, we 

wouldn’t do away with any State laws. An out-of-State handgun 

buyer would have to obey the laws of both States. 

For example, Iowa requires a handgun buyer to get a permit to 

purchase before buying a handgun. And Wisconsin has a 48-hour 

waiting period on handgun sales. If one of my constituents went to 

Wisconsin and wanted to buy a handgun, he would still have to 

have the Iowa permit, but also have to wait 48 hours before taking 

delivery of the gun. And that would be to comply with the Wisconsin law. 

Some State laws are so restrictive or so complicated that it would 

be difficult or impossible to comply with two sets of laws. For example, I don’t think anyone would have to worry about interstate 

sales between, say, Massachusetts and New Jersey, and H.R. 1384 

doesn’t try to change that. 

1384 simply removes certain Federal restrictions that were supposed to help States enforce their internal laws in the days before 

we had computerized background checks to help prevent gun sales 

to criminals. 

The other provisions of H.R. 1384, which involve dealers’ ability 

to exhibit in out-of-State gun shows and to conduct face-to-face firearm transactions with dealers from other States, are just as relevant to districts like mine. These provisions would allow federally 

licensed dealers to do business with each other and with the public, 

but they would still have to obey all the applicable Federal laws 

as well as the laws of the State where they happen to be doing 

business. 

So, again, if a licensed dealer from Red Oak, Iowa, and another 

licensed dealer from Wahoo, Nebraska, want to make a trade at a 

gun show in Omaha, Nebraska, they could do that. They just have 

8

to cross all their T’s and dot all their I’s under Federal law and 

Nebraska law. Then they would no longer be forced to go back to 

their stores and mail a gun, which might be lost or stolen in transit. 

The fact that they have to do that now—based on the Government’s interpretation of the law—is a ridiculous policy, which, 

frankly, endangers public safety. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the privilege to testify before this 

Committee, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. King follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for allowing 

me to testify on H.R. 1384, the ‘‘Firearm Commerce Modernization Act.’’ The key focus of this bill is to remove Federal restrictions on interstate firearms 

transactions. Some of those restrictions have outlived their usefulness, based on today’s background check technology. Other restrictions are based on legal interpretations by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; these restrictions 

may actually create a greater risk of guns falling into the wrong hands. 

H.R. 1384 would remove restrictions on the interstate sale of firearms, as long as 

the sales otherwise comply with federal law and the laws of the buyers’ and sellers’ states. This would include the federal background check requirement, as well as a 

host of state restrictions. 

I’d like to discuss why this bill is especially relevant to my district and many 

other rural areas in the country. I represent a large area in western Iowa, which 

happens to border on four other states. We don’t have a lot of big cities in my district; in fact, we don’t have any big cities in my district. What we do have are a 

lot of rural residents who live in Iowa, but do a lot of their shopping and other personal business in another state. 

Many of the residents of my district also own firearms, and in this case the federal restrictions on interstate firearms transactions really create a burden for my 

constituents and those in the surrounding states. Unfortunately, it’s quite possible 

that one of my law-abiding constituents might not be able to find a gun he wants 

locally, but might find it for sale in Sioux Falls or Omaha or Kansas City. 

In fact, we allow exactly this type of sale now, but only for rifles and shotguns. 

All H.R. 1384 would do is extend that to handguns. And again, we are only talking 

about law-abiding people, and all the sales would be subject to federal and state law 

and would only be carried out after a background check on the buyer. 

On that point, I’d like point out just how limited H.R. 1384 is, and my state is 

a good example to do that. Both Iowa and all the states surrounding it have restrictions on handgun sales above and beyond the requirements of Federal law. Under 

H.R. 1384, we wouldn’t do away with any state laws. An out-of-state handgun buyer 

would have to obey the laws of both states. 

For example, Iowa requires a handgun buyer to get a ‘‘permit to purchase’’ before 

buying a handgun, and Wisconsin has a 48-hour waiting period on handgun sales. 

If one of my constituents went to Wisconsin (an expensive trip at today’s gas prices) 

and wanted to buy a handgun, she would have still have to have the Iowa permit, 

but would also have to wait 48 hours before taking delivery of the gun. 

Some state laws are so restrictive or so complicated that it would be difficult or 

impossible to comply with two sets of laws. For example, I don’t think anyone would 

have to worry about interstate sales between Massachusetts and New Jersey, and 

H.R. 1384 doesn’t try to change that. H.R. 1384 simply removes certain federal restrictions that were supposed to help states enforce their internal laws in the days 

before we had computerized background checks to help prevent gun sales to criminals. 

The other provisions of H.R. 1384 (which involve dealers’ ability to exhibit at out 

of state gun shows, and to conduct face-to-face firearms transactions with dealers 

from other states) are just as relevant to districts like mine. 

These provisions would allow federally licensed dealers to do business with each 

other and with the public, but they would still have to obey all the applicable federal laws, as well as the laws of the state where they happened to be doing business. So again, if a licensed dealer from Red Oak, Iowa and another licensed dealer 

from Wahoo, Nebraska want to make a trade at a gun show in Omaha, they could 

do that—they’d just have to cross all their Ts and dot all their Is under federal law 

9

and Nebraska law. They would no longer be forced to go back to their stores and 

mail a gun, which might be lost or stolen in transit. The fact that they have to do 

that now—based on the government’s interpretation of the law—is a ridiculous policy, which frankly endangers public safety. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify.

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, Mr. King. 

Mrs. McCarthy, you’re recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN McCARTHY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW 

YORK 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for affording me the 

opportunity to speak here today, and I’d also like to thank Ranking 

Member Scott for having me here as well. And I’d like to thank the 

Members of the Committee for also being here. 

Mr. Chairman, I’d like permission to enter my entire statement 

into the record. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Today, I’d like to—thank you. 

Today, I’d like to talk to you about H.R. 1415, the NICS Improvement Act. This is a bill that would increase the effectiveness of the 

existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the 

database used to check potential firearm buyers for any criminal 

record or any other disqualifying criteria. 

Overall, NICS has been a success. Since 1994, more than 1.2 million individuals have been denied a gun because of a failed background check. NICS also provides the vast majority of honest gun 

sellers with peace of mind in knowing that they are selling their 

products to citizens who will use them safely and legally. 

However, the NICS system is only as good as the information 

States provide. And unfortunately, many States don’t have the resources necessary to enter all of this disqualifying criteria into the 

NICS system. 

The end result is that felons and others who are not permitted 

by existing law to buy guns are passing background checks, buying 

guns through legitimate means. In fact, 28 States have automated 

less than 75 percent of their criminal history records. In 15 States, 

domestic violence restraining orders, which is a disqualifying offense, are not accessible through NICS. 

These and other loopholes have cost countless people their lives, 

including two of my constituents. On March 8, 2002, Peter Troy 

purchased a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle from a legitimate gun 

dealer in New York. He had a history of mental health problems, 

and his own mother had a restraining order against him as a result 

of his violent background. Yet his NICS background check turned 

up no red flags. 

It was illegal for him to purchase a gun. But like so many others, 

he simply slipped through the cracks in the NICS system because 

of lack of information. 

Four days later, Peter Troy walked into Our Lady of Peace 

Church in Lynbrook, New York, opened fire, and killed Reverend 

Lawrence Penzes, and a parishioner, Eileen Tosner. Peter Troy had 

no business being able to buy a gun, and the system created to prevent him from doing so simply failed. 

10

It is only a matter of time before the system’s failings provoke 

larger tragedies. We must improve the NICS and allow it to do 

what it was designed to do. 

The responsibility for the accuracy and the effectiveness of the 

NICS system ultimately belongs to the States. However, many 

States’ budgets are already overburdened. 

This legislation would provide grants to States to update the 

NICS systems. States would be able to update their NICS database 

to include felons, domestic abusers, and others not legally qualified 

to buy a gun. 

The bill’s goal is to have had all 50 States enter at least 90 percent of this disqualifying information into NICS. States that don’t 

comply or fall short of these goals will be penalized with a 5 percent reduction of their Federal Department of Justice grant allotments. 

Also, the bill would provide grants for State courts to promptly 

enter information into the NICS system. For example, when someone is served with a restraining order stemming from domestic violence, an inefficient NICS system would allow him or her to leave 

the courthouse and head right to the gun store. My bill would 

make sure all preventive court records are entered into the NICS 

before a crime of passion can be committed. 

It is important to keep in mind that this bill does nothing to infringe on anybody’s second amendment rights, which I support. It 

creates no new gun laws. It simply gives States the resources to 

better enforce the current law. 

If H.R. 1415 became law, law-abiding citizens who want to buy 

a gun legally will not experience any delay at the point of purchase, and this bill poses no burden on gun sellers. In fact, I introduced this bill in 2002 with my friend and colleague Mr. Dingell 

of Michigan, who is well known for his strong support of gun 

rights. 

In 2002, this legislation passed the House by voice vote. Unfortunately, the other body didn’t have the time to take up this legislation before the 107th Congress came to an end. The measure had 

the support of Senators Hatch and Craig, another two long-time 

supporters of gun rights. 

In closing, I believe this is common sense legislation that will 

keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who the law 

prohibits from having firearms. And with it, again, it does nothing 

to infringe on second amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. 

I’m happy to work with the Committee to improve this bill so that 

it better enforces our existing law. 

Thank you for the time, and I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. McCarthy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN MCCARTHY, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for affording me the opportunity to speak today. I’d 

also like to thank Ranking Member Scott. I ask that my complete statement be included in the record. 

Today, I’d like to talk to you about H.R. 1415, the NICS Improvement Act. 

This bill would increase the effectiveness of the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the database used to check potential firearms buyers for any criminal record or history of mental illness. 

11

Overall, NICS has been a success. Since 1994 more than 1.2 million individuals 

have been denied a gun because of a failed background check. At the same time, 

98 percent of purchases were cleared. 

NICS also provides the vast majority of honest gun dealers peace of mind in 

knowing they are selling their products to citizens who will use them safely and legally. 

However, the NICS system is only as good as the information states provide to 

it. And unfortunately, many states don’t have the resources necessary to enter all 

of their disqualifying criteria into the NICS system. 

The end result is that felons and others who are not permitted by existing law 

to buy guns are passing background checks buying guns through legitimate means. 

In fact, twenty-eight states have automated less than seventy-five per cent of 

their criminal history records. 

In fifteen states, domestic violence restraining orders, which are a disqualifying 

offense, are not accessible through NICS, because those records are incomplete or 

not fully automated. 

Thirty-seven states do not enter the records of those mentally adjudicated into the 

NICS database for a number of reasons. 

These loopholes have cost countless people their lives, including two of my constituents. 

On March 8, 2002, Peter Troy purchased a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle from 

a legitimate gun dealer in New York. He had a history of mental health problems 

and his own mother had a restraining order against him as the result of his violent 

background. 

Yet his NICS background check turned up no red flags. 

It was illegal for him to purchase a gun; but, like so many others, he simply 

slipped through the cracks in the NICS system because of a lack of information. 

Four days later, Peter Troy walked into the Our Lady of Peace Church in 

Lynbrook, New York, opened fire, and killed Rev. Lawrence Penzes and a parishioner, Eileen Tosner. 

Peter Troy had no business buying a gun, and the system created to prevent him 

from doing so simply failed. 

It is only a matter of time before the system’s failings lead to larger tragedies. 

We must fix the NICS system and allow it do what it was designed to do. 

The responsibility for the accuracy and effectiveness of the NICS system ultimately belongs to the states; however, many state budgets are already overburdened. 

This legislation would provide grants to states to update the NICS system. It includes $250 million for each of the next three years for state law enforcement and 

$125 million for each of those three years for state court systems. States would have 

the resources to update their NICS databases to include felons, people that have 

been adjudicated with certain mental and emotional disabilities, and domestic abusers. 

The bill’s goal is to have had all 50 states enter at least 90% of their disqualifying 

information into NICS. States that don’t comply or fall short of these goals will be 

penalized with a 5% reduction of certain Department of Justice grant allocations. 

It is important to keep in mind that this bill does not infringe on anybody’s 2nd 

Amendment Rights, which I support. It simply enforces current law. 

If H.R. 1415 becomes law, law-abiding citizens who want to buy a gun legally will 

not experience any delay at the point of purchase. 

And this bill poses no new burden on gun sellers. 

In fact, I first introduced this bill in 2002 with my friend and colleague, Mr. Dingell of Michigan, who is well known for his strong support of gun rights and the 

2nd Amendment. 

In 2002, the House passed this legislation by voice vote. Unfortunately, the other 

body didn’t have the time to take up this legislation before the 107th Congress came 

to an end. The measure had the support of Senators Hatch and Craig, another two 

longtime supporters of gun rights. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Brady check under the NICS System consists 

of two-steps. 

First, the NICS Call Center representative or NICS E-Check system runs a computer search of several databases to see if the purchaser has a record that prohibits 

him or her from possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g). Specifically, 

the NICS computer search includes a search of the:

• Interstate Identification Index (III)—a computerized system that contains 

records from participating states and the FBI’s criminal history databases;

12

• National Crime Information Center 2002 (NCIC)—a system that stores 

data provided by state and local law enforcement, including information on 

wanted persons, missing persons, stolen property, protection orders, etc; and

• NICS Index File—a compilation of databases ranging from the DHS/INS 

files on immigration status to a miscellaneous file, which States can used to 

inform NICS that a person is in a prohibited category or cannot purchase a 

firearm under state law.

In the end, this initial computer search seeks to determine whether or not the 

purchaser falls within one of the nine categories prohibiting a person from purchasing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g). 

The Brady check is complete at this stage if the initial computer search indicates 

the purchaser has no record (‘‘Proceed’’) or a record indicates the purchaser is prohibited from purchasing a firearm (‘‘Denied’’). The NICS System immediately notifies gun dealers if one of these determinations is reached. The vast majority of 

Brady checks fall into this category and are completed in a matter of minutes, if 

not seconds. 

Second, if the initial computer search cannot reach a final determination, the call 

is passed on to a NICS representative to conduct a human search for missing information that will allow NICS to reach a determination. The NICS System typically 

cannot reach a determination because information it should receive from the states 

is not available. A classic example is when III or NCIC indicates that a purchaser 

was arrested in a state, but the state has not entered the disposition of the case 

into III or NCIC. In short, the NICS System cannot determine whether the purchaser was convicted or acquitted and cannot make a final determination. In this 

situation, the NICS representative literally must attempt to get missing information 

to make a NICS determination by calling state and local courthouses, judges, clerks 

or law enforcement to get information. 

If the NICS System cannot give a response to the gun dealer within three business days, the dealer has permission to sell or transfer the firearm to the purchaser 

under the Brady law. However, the NICS System will continue to attempt to reach 

a final determination for a brief period of time. If after three days it discovers the 

purchaser was ineligible to purchaser a firearm, the FBI NICS System notifies ATF 

and agents will seek to recover the firearm from the unauthorized purchaser. 

I want to reiterate that the system works best when it has all relevant information. Legal sales are approved promptly, and federal agents do not have to waste 

time tracking down unauthorized weapons. 

Mr. Chairman, I now want to remind you of several reports from the Department 

of Justice on the NICS process and on the data used by NICS to conduct background checks. 

In August 2004, the Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 

published Survey of State Records Included in Presale Background Checks: Mental 

Health Records, Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Records, and Restraining Orders,

2003 (NCJ 206042). BJS conducted a survey to examine the quality and availability 

of State records for these categories of people who are barred under current law 

from possessing a gun. Once you review this report, you will understand why each 

state needs a central repository for criminal and court records of those persons who 

are not legally entitled to a gun. The present records system in many states is incomplete and fragmented. 

Criminal history disposition is a key component of a total NICS system. In January 2005, the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division issued its ‘‘NICS 

Operations Report 2003–2004.’’ It notes that ‘‘[f]inal disposition information is vital 

to the NICS because it is required in order to determine the eligibility of potential 

firearm purchasers.’’

The final disposition of arrests is crucial to the accuracy of a NICS background 

check. I am not talking about only felony arrests. The law denies a gun to a person 

convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor offense. Accurate records in NICS 

keep guns out of the hands of abusive people. All it takes is one incomplete record, 

and tragedy ensues. 

The FBI’s comments were reinforced by the BJS report Improving Access to and 

Integrity of Criminal History Records (July 2005, NCJ 200581). This report notes 

that in a 2001 survey ‘‘[s]ix states reported that 90% or more of their arrests had 

corresponding final dispositions.’’ It also noted that ‘‘[i]n nine States less than half 

of the arrests had final dispositions recorded in the databases.’’

In many states, no single agency is responsible for providing information on final 

disposition. In one state, it may be the arresting agency. In another, the prosecutor. 

In a third, the court. We need timely and accurate information on the disposition 

of cases so that barred people do not walk out of court and into a gun shop. We 

13

need coordination and cooperation between state courts and state law enforcement. 

Otherwise, we cannot enforce existing law. 

I was pleased to see that the July 2005 BJS report included five recommended 

action items. These recommendations included (1) obtaining full participation of the 

States in the FBI’s Interstate Identification Index (III); and (2) improving State contributions to the FBI’s national databases of prohibited purchasers. The NICS Improvement Act would help implement those recommendations. 

Mr. Chairman, I would never claim to have all the answers to improving the background check process. I welcome the suggestions and comments of the members of 

this committee, the administration, and other parties interested in keeping guns out 

of the hands of criminals. 

I have three goals that I hope to achieve with H.R. 1415. First, strengthen the 

enforcement of existing law. Second, help the states compile and provide the data 

that will enforce existing law. Third, get as much of that data into NICS as quickly 

as possible. 

I want to work with you and others to achieve these goals. 

The background records system is much better than it was 12 years ago. However, 

much more needs to be done before all relevant records are provided to NICS. 

In closing, I believe that H.R. 1415 is common sense legislation that will keep 

guns out of the hands of criminals and others who the law prohibits from having 

firearms. 

And it does this without infringing on the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding 

Americans. 

Thank you for time, and I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have.

14

ATTACHMENT


CM1.eps
15


CM2.eps
16

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mrs. McCarthy. 

If you all will suspend just a moment and let me confer with Mr. 

Scott? 

[Pause.] 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. We appreciate the witnesses’ comments 

here. I would like to know, just as a matter of interest, if either 

of you three know—— Strike that. We will revert to the suspension. So if you all will 

rest easy for the moment, and we will bring up two bills to mark 

up. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. COBLE. And I thank the witnesses for your patience. 

Now we will examine you all, and we will start the 5-minute barometer on us. 

Let me ask each of you three, just as a matter of interest, has 

the Justice Department expressed an opinion to your bills to either 

of you? 

Dr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, on 1384, to my knowledge, they 

have not. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. And I have to defer to Mr. Gingrey’s response to that. 

Mr. COBLE. Mrs. McCarthy? 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. I wouldn’t say they have responded to this particular bill. But in August of 2005, they did come out with a report 

basically saying the shortcomings of the States of not reporting the 

information that they needed to do a complete check. 

Mr. COBLE. So at least by implication, lending support, I would 

assume? 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Gingrey, you’re the original sponsor of the bill 

before us. How would this bill build upon or reinforce existing gun 

laws? 

Dr. GINGREY. Well, Mr. Chairman, the title of the bill, I think, 

really says it all—the Firearms Commerce Modernization Act. And 

it would, in its simplest description of that—simplest answer, 

would be the law—the current law that’s applicable to long guns 

would also be applicable to handguns. And that’s, in essence, what 

this does. 

And as we pointed out, of course, back in the Gun Control Act 

of 1968, there was a lot of concerns about States’ rights, and States 

had their databanks and information on—on who could or should 

not be allowed to buy a handgun or even a long gun, for that matter. 

But as I pointed out in my opening testimony, Mr. Chairman, 

we’ve come a long way since 1968. And I gave those examples of 

the purchasing of a computer with more memory than NASA had 

back in those days when they were trying to put a man on the 

Moon. 

And this is just simply what it is. It’s modernizing the Firearms 

Commerce Act. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Mrs. McCarthy, I’ll be a little more detailed as opposed to my 

first question. Has the Justice Department documented any problems collecting and updating background information from States, 

17

A? And B, do you know how much Federal funding is provided to 

States to collect background information? 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Answering to your first question, we have found 

that because a number of States—let’s take the issue of mental illness. A lot of States, because of the privacy laws, don’t want to put 

that information into the NICS system, which is really a shame. 

Because basically, when you look at the NICS system and, say, 

someone is going to buy a gun, what it pops up is either denied or, 

you know, go forward. 

So no matter what the law—you know, 1968 Gun Control Act 

has 9 provisions on those that shouldn’t be able to buy guns. With 

that being said, no one knows why someone is being denied. So privacy is in there. 

Also in my legislation, the attorney general will have the right 

and the Department of Justice will have the flexibility to work with 

the States to make sure all privacy is protected. 

As far as the amount of money that has been allotted in past years to bring the NICS system up, I believe it was like $300 million. But again, that was from the beginning, and it has done a 

fairly good job. 

But up to even going past 10 years, a lot of the names because 

of States not having the equipment, especially the equipment that 

we’re talking about that has become so more advanced—like the 

courts. The majority of courts do not have computers to be able to 

put the information that they need right then and there into the 

system, where it would automatically go. 

I actually think this will end up saving money also. Because 

when someone is denied the use of—or the permit of being able to 

buy a gun, it has to go back down to the FBI. They have to do a 

visual search. So that’s manpower that’s being used. 

So I think, in the end, this can actually, number one, save lives. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. 

Mr. King, you heard Mr. Gingrey’s response to my question. Do 

you want to extend that or weigh upon it? 

Mr. KING. I endorse the response given by Mr. Gingrey, and I 

just think that when we’re—as this society moves forward, Government is always behind the curve on technology. We’ll never keep 

up with the changes that are brought technology-wise. But it’s incumbent upon us to try. 

And I think this is a very valid effort, especially because it respects individual laws of each State and helps facilitate these 

transactions and doesn’t violate the second amendment. So I think 

this is a well thought out piece of legislation. 

And really, the people that are, you know, they’re opposed to gun 

rights still shouldn’t object to this because it doesn’t expand any 

rights. It simply—it simply facilitates technology use. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you. I thank the three of you for being with 

us. 

Dr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, if I can just have a little add-on to 

that? I think, really, for the very same reasons that 1415 is a good 

bill—Mrs. McCarthy’s bill—it’s the same thing as what she said. 

The technology is there to get this information, and it would be 

foolish not to do it. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you. 

18

The gentleman from Virginia? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Dr. Gingrey, you went a long way in saying how this is just an 

extension of the present law for rifles. Is that right? 

Dr. GINGREY. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now one of the things that we’re dealing with is 

crime. Isn’t it more likely that a crime will be committed with a 

handgun than a rifle, and isn’t the difference in treatment, therefore, justified? 

Dr. GINGREY. Well, in response to the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Scott, I think you’re absolutely right. I think that it is more probable that a crime would be committed with a handgun than a long 

gun for fairly obvious reasons. And again, I think this is the thinking that existed back in 1968 in the Gun Control Act in regard to 

having a difference the way you would restrict a sale of a long gun 

versus a handgun. 

But as we’ve been saying, both myself and Representative 

McCarthy, things have changed so much in regard to the ability to 

get this information and to get it in a timely fashion. And I think 

that we certainly are still concerned with crime and handguns. But 

I think this—the safeguards are there. The technology is there, and 

I think we need to bring them into—— Mr. SCOTT. But the point I was making is that a difference in 

approach is not unreasonable. If you have a licensee in one State 

trying to apply rules and regulations of another State, is there anything—as a condition of getting the license, is there anything that 

a Virginia licensee is required to know about the laws of other 

States? 

Dr. GINGREY. Mr. Scott, as far as I know, my understanding, of 

course, is the license of a firearm dealer is both—primarily a Federal license. And someone, let’s say a licensed dealer in Georgia 

that’s having a gun show in Virginia. And he or she has that Blue 

Book there in front of them, which is updated, I guess, on an annual basis. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is there anything in terms of him getting a license 

in Georgia that would require him to know what Virginia laws are? 

Dr. GINGREY. I’m not sure of the answer to that question, Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well—— Dr. GINGREY. But I know that they have the book that lists the 

requirements of gun purchases in every State in the union, and 

that’s the so-called Blue Book, FF——

Mr. SCOTT. Somebody in Virginia—somebody in Georgia might 

not know about Virginia’s ‘‘one gun a month’’ law. Is that right? 

Dr. GINGREY. Well, that’s possible. This Member certainly does 

know about Virginia’s ‘‘one gun a month law,’’ and the no guns in 

Massachusetts or in the city of Washington, D.C. But——

Mr. SCOTT. Well, do some States have waiting periods and others 

not have waiting periods? 

Dr. GINGREY. It—I think that is true, Representative Scott. They 

do. Georgia, of course, now has the instant background check system. They used to have a waiting period. 

But again, those States that would have requirements like that, 

a waiting period of several days or a one gun a month or a no gun 

19

under any circumstances, no handgun, those laws would absolutely 

have to be adhered to. And the most stringent would trump the 

least stringent. 

Mr. SCOTT. The problem, though, is that the licensee may not be 

familiar with the laws, and that would be the problem we’re getting into. Would there be some crimes that would disqualify you for 

getting a firearm in one State would not disqualify you in another 

State? 

Dr. GINGREY. And I’m glad you ask that question, Representative 

Scott, because that is true. There are. I mean, as an example, in 

Georgia, if you have been charged with spousal abuse, as an example, you are not eligible to purchase a handgun. You would fail the 

instant background check, according to Georgia law. 

And of course, prior to having this system, this NICS system, 

someone that maybe had three charges of spousal abuse in the 

State of New York could come to the State of Georgia and with a 

new wife or, you know, as a divorcee and purchase a handgun, and 

that record would not be available until we have this——

Mr. SCOTT. I think that gets us to Mrs. McCarthy’s bill. Just how 

far behind are some of these States? 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Well, some States, like I said, have come up to, 

you know, 75 percent. A lot of the States have come nowhere near 

it. 

And I think the perfect example is when you’re talking about 

interstate, and I think that’s where, you know, my bill would certainly enhance the safety of the background checks being done. We 

want to look back, you know, 10 years. And then after 5 years, 

there would be a lookout to see how far we could go back. 

Right now, most of the States are nowhere near 90 percent, nowhere near it. And most of them do not have the information that 

is needed, which is the criteria of the 9 reasons why someone 

shouldn’t be able to buy a gun. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ninety percent is somewhat of a modest goal because 

that means 1 out of 10 records would be missed. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Well, when we passed the bill back in 2002, we 

worked through this Committee. And basically, they felt that going 

higher than 90 percent would not be realistic. I’m certainly more 

than willing to work with the Committee if they would like to raise 

it higher. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, thank you. 

And Mr. Chairman, I think your bill would go a long way into 

giving the States the resources to get it even higher, and I appreciate your legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, Mr. Scott. 

And I ask the witnesses again if you will suspend, and I apologize to all of you for the irregular procedure. But once we have a 

reporting quorum here, we need to strike while the iron is hot. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. COBLE. Now we will return to our panel, and I recognize the 

distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney. I think—is he 

still here? Mr. Feeney is gone. 

20

Mr. Miller, I think, was the next one in attendance. Mr. Miller, 

the gentleman from Florida? Mr. Miller, do you want to make a 

comment on this? Mr. Keller. I’m sorry. I stand corrected. 

Mr. KELLER. No questions. 

Mr. COBLE. The distinguished gentleman from Maryland (sic), 

the Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This gun problem is a serious one. I ask unanimous consent to 

have my opening statement included in the hearing. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows in the Appendix] 

Mr. CONYERS. And I thank you. 

I understand there’s delicate negotiations going on. But in Detroit, my friends, there is a group called SOSAD, S-O-S-A-D, created by an African-American mother who lost two children to gunfire. And what I’m concerned about, and it may have been mentioned, but I sure want to talk about the tragedy of young people 

being killed in America by weapons, handguns, which outnumber 

every other country—modern country in the world. 

Here we have 19 children killed annually in Great Britain, 57 in 

Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 children in the 

United States. Now Clementine Barfield of Save Our Sons and 

Daughters, SOSAD, which tries to deal with violence prevention 

and victims services, is doing a fantastic job. She’s received numerous awards from both Presidents Clinton and Reagan for victim advocacy, and she gets funding from corporations and foundations 

and Government. 

But is there going to come a day in the Judiciary Committee 

where we deal with this? Nobody is talking about gun rights in Detroit or limiting hunters or blowing off the second amendment to 

the Constitution. We’re worrying about people getting killed needlessly, and kids at that. 

And it seems to me that this is where my focus has become because I’m the representative of the parents of all these young children that are getting needlessly wasted because of the proliferation 

of guns in America. 

Could you help me feel more comfortable when I leave work 

today that we addressed this subject somewhere, somehow? Starting with Mrs. McCarthy. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Conyers, and thank you for 

being here. 

As you know that, since I’ve been here, reducing gun violence in 

this country has been my number-one issue. I have been working 

with a number of States, local to see what we can do to make sure 

that kids don’t get their hands on guns, and that’s one of the biggest problems. 

Right here in the D.C. area, we have a wonderful program that 

I’m trying to bring into the New York area, where we go in and 

educate our young people not only on why they shouldn’t, you 

know, join gangs to get their hands on guns, but also what guns 

can actually do. You know, with what they see on TV and everything, they think it’s a movie until it really happens. 

And the sad part is many of my young people in my district, and 

I live in a suburban district, most—especially young men—do not 

21

expect to live past 17 or 18 years old, which is a terrible thing to 

even think about. 

I spend a lot of time in my schools, talking to these young people. 

They have the power to change, and we have to change the culture 

of that, that violence is acceptable on any level. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. And I’d like to get you and Clementine 

Barfield together in the Detroit area one of these days. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Well, I plan on doing a lot more traveling, State 

to State. 

Mr. CONYERS. Good. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Talking to all these unfortunate victims and to 

work with them. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Could I ask Mr. King and Mr. Gingrey to weigh in on this subject, please? 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Ranking Member Conyers. And I appreciate the sensitivity that you bring to this issue. 

You know, it occurs to me that my wife, living here in Washington, D.C., lives in a higher risk environment as a civilian here 

in Washington, D.C., than a civilian does in Iraq. In that the violent fatalities per 100,000 in Iraq are 27.51. The violent fatalities 

in Washington, D.C., are 45.9 per 100,000 residents. 

And Detroit happens to be 41.8 violent fatalities per 100,000 residents. So it’s significantly more dangerous to be in either Washington, D.C., or Detroit than it is to live in Iraq. But——

Mr. CONYERS. But Brother King, there are no suicide bombers in 

D.C. 

Mr. KING. This—this takes into account the suicide bombers in 

Iraq of the death of civilians. And also—and my point, though, is 

we have very strict gun laws here in Washington, D.C., and yet a 

very high fatality rate. 

Mr. CONYERS. But you know what the deal is. They’re bringing 

them in from everywhere else. I mean, the freeway is loaded with 

people bringing in truckloads of guns into D.C., even though it’s 

against the law to purchase them here. 

Could I ask for an additional minute? 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. This is a very good interchange, and 

I’m so happy to have you participating in it. 

Mr. Gingrey? 

Dr. GINGREY. Well, let me just say to the distinguished Ranking 

Member of the Committee, the whole Committee, I appreciate exactly what he’s saying. And to be here with Mrs. McCarthy, and 

I understand the personal tragedy that she has gone through, and 

I know that the distinguished Ranking Member is a strong proponent of the second amendment and gun owners rights. 

And I think really a lot of it, Mr. Conyers, is the violence that 

our society is exposed to. It’s pretty sad, really, when you—when 

you look at what’s on television or in the movies, what Hollywood 

is producing or, indeed, on the Internet. Kids go to these video arcades, and it’s about blowing up and killing everybody. 

Mr. CONYERS. It’s cultural, isn’t it? 

22

Dr. GINGREY. It’s a cultural problem. It really is, Mr. Conyers. 

You’re right on target, and I don’t think it’s our laws. I think our 

laws are good. 

And as Mr. King pointed out, you know, a lot of these crimes 

with handguns are theft situations. They’re not guns that are purchased with instant background checks. 

Mr. CONYERS. Do you think that the National Rifle Association 

would join in a discussion like this and agree with us in principle? 

Dr. GINGREY. Indeed, I do. I mean, I’ve had many conversations 

with them, as I’m sure you have, too. I know you’ve worked closely 

with them, and I think they would join with us in being concerned 

about the level of violence in this society. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I haven’t talked to anybody there recently. 

But you know, we all have to come together. We’re coming together 

on the Voting Rights Act extension, and this is another very sensitive subject that I think the more dialogue that we could have, 

Chairman Coble, the better off we’ll be toward some real solutions. 

And I thank the witnesses for their contributions. 

Mr. COBLE. I agree. And I say to the distinguished Ranking 

Member, Mr. Conyers, it astounded me when you gave those comparative figures of our fatalities here as compared to Great Britain, 

for example, Canada. 

I knew we were ahead, but I had no idea that it was that decisive. And I thank you for sharing that with us. 

The distinguished gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman and Members, unfortunately, because we are public policymakers that are elected to have to deal 

with all of the subject matter, we have to continue to deal with the 

concerns of districts because of the use of firearms and the violence 

and the deaths, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. 

And I’m always surprised to see that there is any attempt to 

make it easier for gun sales, easier for people who are selling guns 

not to have to come under close scrutiny. I welcome a tough ATF. 

I welcome the idea that they go to gun shows, and they find out 

whether or not people are from out of State, whether or not people 

are violating the law. And I want them to have a presence and to 

let people know that we don’t take lightly violating any laws in any 

shape, form, or fashion as it relates to gun sales. 

Now what worries me about this bill is that it seems that even 

though it appears that there are a few things that may be good, 

what is this definition of ‘‘willfully?’’ This section clarifies the definition of ‘‘willfully’’ when establishing the intent for a violation. 

The intent standard as applied to licenses would reflect the fact 

that licenses are provided with extensive education and notice of 

all legal and regulatory obligations. Thus, a violation of a known 

legal obligation would require ATF to establish that the licensee 

was aware of the obligation and intentionally or purposely violated 

such obligation. 

The standard here is ignorance is no excuse. So why are we trying to—why are we trying to change that and err on the side of 

the gun seller? Don’t we want ATF to do its job? Why are we setting up higher standards and developing more difficult criteria for 

them to deal with people who are violating the law? That bothers 

me. 

23

And then I see in section 7 limitations on the use of firearms 

purchasing information. Now I am about privacy, and we work very 

hard around here to protect privacy. But some of you were very adamant I think in the PATRIOT Act and some other things we’ve 

done in fighting terrorism that we are able to share information, 

so as to fight terrorism and to make it easier to apprehend people 

who may be involved in potential acts of terrorism. But here, you 

reverse it. 

And now we want to—we want to basically shut down the ability 

of ATF to share information that they gather about these individuals who are involved in gun sales. And there are a few other 

things. But let’s just deal with those two. 

And if I may ask both of our representatives, Mr. Gingrey and 

Mr. King, to respond to my concerns? 

Dr. GINGREY. Ms. Waters, thank you very much for your concerns. And absolutely, I agree with you. We do not want to make 

it more difficult for ATF to go after Federal licensed gun dealers 

who are not abiding by the requirements of their license. And in 

fact, that would be applicable even if the Firearms Modernization 

Act was not in existence, 1384, because we would want ATM—ATF 

to go after them within the States where they’re—where they’re 

currently doing business. 

But you know, you referenced the PATRIOT Act and connecting 

the dots and that sort of thing, and I remember so clearly the 911 

Commission report talking about the stovepipe existence of our intelligence community. And really, in the 1968 Gun Control Act, you 

literally had 50 different stovepipes. 

And so, the fact now that we have a national database, NICS, 

within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and all of the States 

feed their information to Georgia. In Georgia, it’s called the GBI. 

So I think that’s good that we have done that. 

And with this system, I feel that it’s just clearly this bill, 1384, 

Firearms Commerce Modernization Act, doesn’t change any existing law. It just allows us to do some things that because of technology and computer and ability, that’s bringing it into the 21st 

century. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Yes, thank you, Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Excuse me? 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. COBLE. You are recognized for 1 additional minute. 

Mr. KING. If I could just reference a clarification with regard to 

Mr. Gingrey’s. As far as not changing any existing law, I think it 

doesn’t change existing responsibilities and doesn’t interfere with 

any State laws or change any State laws or preempt any State 

laws. But it does seek to expedite the process by using modern 

technology. 

And I think you lost me a little bit when you used the language 

about ‘‘willfully violate.’’ I have the bill in front of me. Could you 

point out where that language is that would be—would be lowering 

the enforcement ability by adding the word ‘‘willfully’’ in the bill? 

Ms. WATERS. Yes, I will. I beg your pardon. Oh, okay. It’s in another bill. 

24

Mr. KING. I’m sorry. That would be why I didn’t pick up on it 

then. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for 

bringing that to my attention. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentlelady. 

And I, again, thank the witnesses and those in the hearing room 

who stayed with us. And I apologize to the witnesses for having to 

make you all jump through hoops time and again. But when you 

report bills out, you know how that goes with the reporting 

quorum. 

We appreciate very much your contribution to our three Members. In order to ensure a full record and adequate consideration 

of this important issue, the record will be left open for additional 

submissions for 7 days. Also any written question from any Member who wants to submit questions to the witnesses should be submitted within that same 7-day timeframe. 

This concludes the legislative hearing on H.R. 1384, the ‘‘Firearm 

Commerce Modernization Act,’’ and H.R. 1415, the ‘‘NICS Improvement Act.’’ Thank you for your cooperation. 

And the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(25)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN AND RANKING MEMBER, COMMMITTEE ON

THE JUDICIARY

The legislative proposals under consideration today are as different as day and 

night. 

The first bill, HR 1415, introduced by Ms. McCarthy and which I am a cosponsor 

of seeks to make it harder for felons and domestic violence offenders to legally purchase firearms from a licensed gun dealer. The second bill, HR 1384, which was introduced by Mr. Gingrey aspires to make it much easier. 

I have several concerns with the latter proposal. First and foremost, it proposes 

to overturn a longstanding prohibition in our current system of gun laws which restricts the ability of an individual to travel across state lines to purchase handguns. 

Under current law, individuals are required to purchase handguns in their home 

state as a means of protecting state and local law enforcement officials. In addition, 

such policies were enacted as a way of discouraging residents of one state from attempting to travel across state lines to a more lenient state jurisdiction in order to 

evade more stringent gun law protections in their home state. Unfortunately, in one 

fell swoop this bill threatens to eliminate both sets of protections. 

Second, the bill unwisely proposes to allow licensed firearms dealers to travel 

across state lines in order to distribute firearms at local gun shows and other 

venues. Remarkably, this new change comes at a time when all of the available research clearly indicates that gun shows continue to pose a significant problem for 

law enforcement. 

Gun shows are the second leading source of firearms recovered in illegal gun trafficking investigations conducted by the ATF. In fact, in September 2003, the St. 

Louis Post-Dispatch reported that ATF agents seized 572 firearms from five unlicensed sellers who were exploiting the gun show loophole in ways that threaten the 

safety of American citizens. 

We also know that in at least two cases in the past terrorists have targeted gun 

shows in order to purchase firearms. The first case involved Ali Boumelhem, a 

known member of the terrorist group Hezbollah. Mr. Boumelhem was convicted on 

September 10, 2001 by a federal court in Detroit on seven counts of weapons 

charges for smuggling shotguns, ammunition, flash suppressors, and assault weapons parts to Lebanon. 

During the course of their investigation, FBI agents followed Boumelhem to at 

least three Michigan gun shows in October 2000. And, according to the Associated 

Press, ‘‘[The] agents said they watched [him]. . .buy gun parts and ammunition for 

shipment overseas.’’

The second case involved Muhammad Asrar, a Pakistani national with suspected 

al-Qaeda ties. Asrar admitted to authorities that he had bought and sold a variety 

of guns at Texas gun shows over the previous 7 years, including a copy of a Sten 

submachine gun, a Ruger Mini-14 rifle, two handguns, and a hunting rifle. 

By working together we can prevent the 30,000 or so firearm- related deaths that 

occur annually, but only if we choose to enact commonsense proposals that truly 

make it harder for felons to gain access to dangerous firearms. One bill, HR 1415, 

does just this. The other I’m afraid does not.

26

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHELIA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member. I am also happy to welcome three 

of our most distinguished colleagues as witnesses. Mr. Gingrey, Mrs. McCarthy, and 

Mr. King, I am happy you are here and I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

This hearing has been convened to examine the need to update and modify existing law regarding the interstate sale of firearms; and the need to assist States to 

ensure that they provide complete, accurate and updated data to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). 

As I understand it, H.R. 1384, the bill before the subcommittee sponsored by Mr. 

Gingrey and Mr. King, does three things:

1. It would make it legal for a licensed dealer to sell a handgun to a resident 

of another state, as long as they do the sale in person and obey the laws of 

both states, as well as federal law.

2. It would allow dealers to do business at out-of-state gun shows.

3. It would allow dealers to transfer firearms directly to each other without 

having to use a shipper.

I must say Mr. Chairman that I was unaware that federal gun trafficking laws 

were antiquated in urgent need of revision. It is not immediately apparent to me 

why a buyer needs to travel out of state to buy a handgun. Or why a gun dealer 

in Texas needs to travel to Maine to sell firearms at a gun show. I will also be interested to learn why it is no longer advantageous to require dealers to use a shipper 

when transferring firearms and why law enforcement can do without the documentary record such transactions generate. 

I am particularly interested in the witnesses’ response to the concerns raised by 

some that if enacted, the effect of H.R. 1384 will be to make it easier to become 

a gun trafficker or that it will result in local gun shows being transformed into 

huge, national munitions bazaars. 

Thank you for convening this hearing Mr. Chairman and welcome to the witnesses. 

I yield back the remainder of my time.

27

LETTER FROM THE BRADY CENTER FOR GUN VIOLENCE TO THE HONORABLE F. JAMES

SENSENBRENNER, JR., CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY AND THE

HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


Letter0001.eps
28


Letter0002.eps
29

Æ


Letter0003.eps