49–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–672 

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES (BATFE) MODERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 

2006 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5092] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 5092) to modernize and reform the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 

the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) Modernization and Reform Act of 2006’’. 

SEC. 2. GRADUATED PENALTIES FOR CIVIL VIOLATIONS BY FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (e) and (f) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(e)(1)(A) If the Attorney General determines that a licensee under this section 

has willfully violated any provision of this chapter or any regulation prescribed 

under this chapter, the Attorney General may— 

‘‘(i) if the violation is of a minor nature, or if the violation is that the licensee 

has failed to have secure gun storage or safety devices available at any place 

in which firearms are sold under the license to persons who are not licensees 

(except because of theft, casualty loss, consumer sales, back orders from a manufacturer, or any other similar reason beyond the control of the licensee)— 

2 

‘‘(I) impose on the licensee a civil money penalty of not more than $1,000 

for each such violation, except that the total amount of penalties imposed 

on a licensee under this subclause for violations arising from a single inspection or examination shall not exceed $5,000; or 

‘‘(II) suspend the license for not more than 30 days, and specify the circumstances under which the suspension is to be terminated, if, in the period for which the license is in effect, there have been at least 2 prior occasions on which the licensee has been determined to have violated this chapter; or 

‘‘(ii) if the violation is of a serious nature— 

‘‘(I) impose on the licensee a civil money penalty of not more than $2,500 

for each such violation, except that the total amount of penalties imposed 

on a licensee under this subclause for a violations arising from a single inspection or examination shall not exceed $15,000; 

‘‘(II) suspend the license for not more than 90 days, and specify the circumstances under which the suspension is to be terminated; 

‘‘(III) revoke the license; or 

‘‘(IV) take the actions described in subclauses (I) and (II), or subclauses 

(I) and (III). 

‘‘(B)(i)(I) In determining the amount of a civil money penalty to impose under subparagraph (A) on a licensee, the nature and severity of the violation involved, the 

size of the firearms business operated by the licensee, and the prior record of the 

licensee shall be considered. 

‘‘(II) On request of the licensee, the Attorney General may consider the ability of 

the licensee to pay a civil money penalty, and may allow the licensee to submit documents and information to establish the ability of the licensee to pay. The Attorney 

General shall not make part of any public record any document or information so 

submitted, and shall return to the licensee any such document or information. 

‘‘(III) The total amount of penalties imposed on a licensee under subparagraph (A) 

with respect to violations of a minor nature and of a serious nature arising from 

a single inspection or examination shall not exceed $15,000. 

‘‘(ii) For purposes of subparagraph (A), violation of a provision of this chapter with 

respect to 2 or more firearms during a single transaction shall be considered a single violation of the provision. 

‘‘(iii) The Attorney General may defer, or suspend, in whole or in part, the imposition of a civil money penalty on a licensee whose license is suspended under this 

paragraph. 

‘‘(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A): 

‘‘(i) A violation of this chapter shall be considered to be of a serious nature 

if the violation— 

‘‘(I) results in or could have resulted in the transfer of a firearm or ammunition to a person prohibited from possessing or receiving the firearm or 

ammunition under this chapter or under State or local law; 

‘‘(II) obstructs or could have obstructed a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution, or an inspection or examination under this chapter; or 

‘‘(III) prevents or could have prevented a licensee from complying with 

subsection (a)(7), (a)(8), (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4), (j), (k), (o), or (p) of section 922, 

subsection (g)(7) of this section, or subsection (b) or (h) of section 924. 

‘‘(ii) A violation of this chapter shall be considered to be of a minor nature 

if the violation is not of a serious nature. 

‘‘(D) The Attorney General may not commence an enforcement action under subparagraph (A) with respect to a violation, after the 5-year period that begins with— 

‘‘(i) the date the violation occurred; or 

‘‘(ii) if the licensee intentionally obstructed discovery of the violation, the date 

the violation is discovered. 

‘‘(2)(A) Not less than 30 days before the effective date of any penalty imposed on 

a licensee by reason of a determination made under paragraph (1), the Attorney 

General shall send the licensee a written notice— 

‘‘(i) of the determination, and the grounds on which the determination was 

made; 

‘‘(ii) of the nature of the penalty; and 

‘‘(iii) that the licensee may, within 30 days after receipt of the notice, request 

a hearing to review the determination. 

‘‘(B) A hearing to review a determination made under paragraph (1) with respect 

to a licensee shall not be held unless the licensee requests such a hearing within 

30 days after receiving the notice of the determination sent pursuant to subparagraph (A). 

‘‘(C) On timely receipt from the licensee of a request for such a review, the Attorney General shall stay the imposition under paragraph (1) of any penalty involved, 

3 

pending resolution of the review, unless, in the case of a suspension or revocation 

of a licensee, the Attorney General establishes, at a hearing before an administrative law judge, by clear and convincing evidence, that— 

‘‘(i) the licensee or the principal owner of the business subject to the license 

has been indicted and charged with a criminal violation of this chapter; and 

‘‘(ii) the continued operation by the licensee of the business poses an immediate and grave threat to public safety. 

‘‘(3)(A) Within 90 days after timely receipt from a licensee of a request to review 

a determination made under paragraph (1) (or at such later time as is agreed to 

by the Attorney General and the licensee), an administrative law judge shall hold 

a hearing, at a location convenient to the licensee, to review the determination. 

‘‘(B) Not less than 30 days before the hearing, the Attorney General shall deliver 

to the licensee— 

‘‘(i) a document identifying each person whom the Attorney General intends 

to call as a witness during the hearing; 

‘‘(ii) a copy of each document which will be introduced as evidence at the 

hearing; and 

‘‘(iii) copies of all documents on which the determination is based. 

‘‘(C) Within 90 days after the hearing, the administrative law judge shall issue 

a written decision setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a decision as to whether to affirm, modify, or reverse the determination. 

‘‘(D) On request of the licensee, the Attorney General shall stay the effective date 

of any penalty, suspension, or revocation until there has been a final, nonreviewable 

judgment with respect to the determination involved, unless, in the case of a suspension or revocation of a licensee, the Attorney General establishes, at a hearing 

before an administrative law judge, by clear and convincing evidence, that— 

‘‘(i) the licensee or the principal owner of the business subject to the license 

has been indicted and charged with a criminal violation of this chapter; and 

‘‘(ii) the continued operation by the licensee of the business poses an immediate and grave threat to public safety. 

‘‘(E) The action of an administrative law judge under this subsection shall be considered final agency action for all purposes, and may be reviewed only as provided 

in subsection (f). 

‘‘(4) This subsection shall not be interpreted to affect the authority of the Attorney 

General under section 922(t)(5). 

‘‘(f)(1) Within 60 days after a party receives a notice issued under subsection (d)(3) 

of a decision to deny a license, or a notice issued under subsection (e)(3)(C) of a determination to impose a civil money penalty or to suspend or revoke a license, the 

party may file a petition with the United States district court for the district in 

which the party resides or has a principal place of business for a de novo review 

of the decision or determination. 

‘‘(2) In a proceeding conducted under this paragraph, the court shall, on application of a party, consider any evidence submitted by the parties to the proceeding 

whether or not the evidence was considered at the hearing held under subsection 

(d)(3) or (e)(3). 

‘‘(3) If the court decides that the decision or determination was not authorized, 

the court shall order the Attorney General to take such action as may be necessary 

to comply with the judgment of the court. 

‘‘(4) If criminal proceedings are instituted against a licensee alleging any violation 

of this chapter or of a regulation prescribed under this chapter, and the licensee is 

acquitted of the charges, or the proceedings are terminated, other than upon motion 

of the Government before trial on the charges, the Attorney General shall be absolutely barred from denying a license under this chapter, suspending or revoking a 

license granted under this chapter, or imposing a civil money penalty under subsection (e), if the action would be based in whole or in part on the facts which form 

the basis of the criminal charges. 

‘‘(5) The Attorney General may not institute a proceeding to suspend or revoke 

a license granted under this chapter, or to impose a civil money penalty under subsection (e), more than 1 year after the filing of the indictment or information.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

(1) PROCEDURE APPLICABLE TO DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR LICENSE.—Section 

923(d) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3) If the Attorney General denies an application for a license, an administrative 

law judge of the Department of Justice shall, on request by the aggrieved party, 

promptly hold a hearing to review the denial, at a location convenient to the aggrieved party. If, after the hearing, the administrative law judge decides not to reverse the denial, the administrative law judge shall give notice of the final denial 

decision to the aggrieved party.’’. 

4 

(2) ELIMINATION OF REDUNDANT PENALTY.—Section 924 of such title is amended by striking subsection (p). 

SEC. 3. CONSIDERATION OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSE APPLICATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 923(d) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by 

section 2(b) of this Act, is amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4) and inserting after paragraph (1) the following: 

‘‘(2) The Attorney General shall make a preliminary determination as to whether 

to approve or deny an application submitted under subsection (a) or (b). If the preliminary determination is to deny the application, the Attorney General shall notify 

the applicant in writing of the preliminary determination and the reasons for the 

preliminary determination, and shall afford the applicant an opportunity to supplement the application with additional information and to request a hearing on the 

application. If the applicant, in a timely manner, requests such a hearing, the Attorney General shall hold the hearing at a location convenient to the applicant, and 

shall notify the applicant in writing of the time and place of the hearing.’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 923(f) of such title, as amended by section 

2(a) of this Act, is amended by striking ‘‘(d)(3)’’ each place it appears and inserting 

‘‘(d)(4)’’. 

SEC. 4. DEFINITION OF WILLFULLY. 

Section 923(e) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2(a) of this 

Act, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘willfully’ means, with respect to 

conduct of a person, that the person knew of a legal duty, and engaged in the conduct knowingly and in intentional disregard of the duty.’’. 

SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF FORMAL INSPECTION, EXAMINATION, AND INVESTIGATIVE 

GUIDELINES. 

The Attorney General shall establish guidelines for how the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is to conduct inspections, examinations, or investigations of possible violations of chapters 40 and 44 of title 18, United States Code. 

SEC. 6. REVIEW BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF THE 

GUN SHOW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM; REPORT. 

(a) REVIEW.—The Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall conduct a 

review of the operations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, for the purpose of assessing the manner in which the Bureau conducts the 

gun show enforcement program and blanket residency checks of prospective and actual firearms purchasers. 

(b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

the Inspector General of the Department of Justice shall submit to the Committee 

on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report that contains the findings of the review required 

by subsection (a), and includes such recommendations as may be appropriate. 

SEC. 7. LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FIREARMS PURCHASER INFORMATION. 

Section 923(g)(1)(D) of title 18, United States Code, is amended in the last sentence by inserting ‘‘, except that information identifying a person who has purchased 

or received firearms or ammunition and who is not prohibited from doing so may 

not be so made available or so provided unless the agency involved has certified that 

the agency will not disclose the information to any entity other than a court, federal, 

State or local law enforcement agency, or prosecutor’’ before the period. 

SEC. 8. LIQUIDATION OF INVENTORY IN FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSE EXPIRATION, SURRENDER, OR REVOCATION CASES. 

Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

following: 

‘‘(m) A person whose license issued under this chapter is expired, surrendered, or 

revoked shall be afforded 60 days from the effective date of the expiration, surrender, or revocation to liquidate the firearms inventory of the person, which time 

may be extended upon a showing of reasonable cause. During such 60-day period 

(including any extension of the period), the license involved shall continue to be considered valid.’’. 

SEC. 9. OPPORTUNITY TO CURE VIOLATIONS AFTER ACQUISITION OF FIREARMS BUSINESS. 

Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is further amended by adding at the 

end the following: 

‘‘(n) If the Attorney General is made aware that a business licensed under this 

chapter has transferred to a surviving spouse or child of the licensee, to an executor, 

administrator, or other legal representative of a deceased licensee; or to a receiver 

or trustee in bankruptcy, or an assignee for benefit of creditors, and, before the 

5 

transfer, or on the first inspection or examination by the Attorney General of the 

records of the licensee after the transfer, the licensee is found to be operating the 

business in violation of this chapter, the Attorney General— 

‘‘(1) shall notify the transferee of the violation by the transferor; and 

‘‘(2) shall not presume that the transferee is committing the violation.’’. 

SEC. 10. STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS. 

Section 922(m) of title 18, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘any false entry’’ and inserting ‘‘a materially false entry’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘appropriate entry’’ and inserting ‘‘a materially significant 

entry’’; and 

(3) by striking ‘‘properly maintain’’ and inserting ‘‘retain custody of’’. 

SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect at the end of 

the 180-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 5092 reforms and modernizes the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (‘‘BATFE’’) enforcement authority. 

In the 109th Congress, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and 

Homeland Security conducted extensive oversight hearings on 

BATFE’s management and enforcement activities. Such oversight 

has been long overdue given BATFE’s mixed enforcement record. In 

response to specific concerns identified during the oversight hearings, Subcommittee Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott 

crafted a comprehensive reform measure which includes: (1) authorization of graduated penalties and civil penalties (e.g. fines and 

suspensions); (2) creation of independent administrative law judges 

to hear enforcement cases; (3) a clarification on the definition of the 

requisite state of mind for civil violations; (4) the establishment of 

investigative guidelines; (5) request that the Department of Justice 

Inspector General investigate BATFE’s gun show enforcement 

practices; and (6) clarification of several enforcement regulations. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

H.R. 5092 was introduced on April 5, 2006, by Subcommittee 

Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott as a bipartisan attempt to address issues raised during the BATFE oversight hearings. Earlier this year, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and 

Homeland Security conducted three oversight hearings regarding 

the BATFE’s investigation and enforcement activities. This legislation addresses concerns raised at those hearings. The Subcommittee, by voice vote, reported the bill favorably to the full 

Committee on May 3, 2006. 

The oversight hearings held by the Subcommittee raised serious 

concerns relating to the BATFE’s: allocation of resources; BATFE’s 

licensing procedure and enforcement of regulations against licensees; criminal investigation techniques, including questionable stops, 

searches and seizures of firearm purchasers and Federal firearm licensees (‘‘FFL’’); and the lack of consistent law enforcement policies 

and procedures among the BATFE’s field offices and central management. 

The Subcommittee’s oversight hearings revealed the need for: (1) 

a graduated penalty system in title 18 U.S.C. § 923, which includes 

civil penalties, based on the degree of risk of harm that the FFL’s 

violation poses to others; (2) establishing a system of neutral administrative law judges to review the licensing decisions of the 

6 

BATFE; (3) establishing investigative guidelines similar to those of 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Agency; 

and (4) other modifications to Federal law to ensure that American 

citizens receive due process of law. 

CIVIL PENALTIES

Section 2 of H.R. 5092 establishes a graduated penalty system 

under 18 U.S.C. § 923, which includes civil penalties, based on the 

degree of risk of harm that the FFL’s violation poses to others. For 

too many years BATFE has labored under a restrictive enforcement 

scheme which forces BATFE to either revoke a license or do nothing at all. This bill provides the BATFE with graduated sanctions 

so that FFLs will face a full range of possible sanctions, including 

civil penalties, suspensions and the ultimate penalty—revocation of 

their licenses. Any sanction is based on whether the violation is 

‘‘serious,’’ those that pose a risk to the public, or are ‘‘minor violations,’’ those that do not pose a risk of harm to the public. No 

longer will BATFE have to cajole licensees to comply or threaten 

them with heavy-handed revocation proceedings; instead, the 

BATFE will be able to seek a penalty that reflects the infraction. 

The bill also sets reasonable penalty caps: $5,000 for minor violations, and $15,000 for serious violations. Further, repeat offenders 

who commit minor violations can eventually have their license revoked. Serious violations will also result in revocation. 

FIVE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON VIOLATIONS

Section 2 of the bill sets out a five year statute of limitations for 

enforcement of violations, but extends that period if a licensee obstructs discovery of the violation. If the licensee has not violated 

the law for five years, there is no need to subject the licensee to 

enforcement action. The Federal criminal code imposes a five year 

statute of limitations for criminal offenses and the tax code imposes 

a three year statute of limitation for felonies and six years set for 

serious felonies, all from the date of occurrence of the violation. 

REQUIREMENT OF DE NOVO JUDICIAL REVIEW

Section 3 clarifies congressional intent with respect to de novo judicial review. As there has been some uncertainty among the courts 

in reenacting this provision, the Committee approves the interpretation in Willingham Sports, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives, 348 F.Supp.2d 1299, 1306, n.12 (S.D. Ala. 

2004) (‘‘no deference must be accorded to the administrative proceedings . . . To the extent that the BATFE argues that the Federal court must uphold the agency decision as long as there is substantial evidence to support it, the Court cannot agree, as such a 

formulation would contravene the ‘de novo’ statutory language’’). 

NEED TO DEFINE ‘‘WILLFULLY’’ 

The Committee discovered examples of the BATFE, revoking 

FFL licenses based on minuscule clerical errors. This demonstrates 

the need to require the BATFE to prove that the licensee knowingly and intentionally violated the Gun Control Act. 

In Article II Gun Shop, Inc. v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 

2006), (Gun World is the trade name for the FFL at issue in this 

7 

case), the Court of Appeals upheld the revocation of Gun World’s 

license by the BATFE based on clerical errors contained in 12 out 

of the 880 BATFE 4473 Forms. Whenever a firearm is sold, a dealer is required by law to fill out a ‘‘Form 4473.’’ Gun World’s 4473 

documents were maintained as follows: 

On six forms, Gun World omitted the type of identification used by the buyer (although the type of identification 

was known from another document); on two forms, Gun 

World’s salesperson omitted his signature and the date of 

the transfer (although the information was on another document); on two forms the buyer did not state whether he 

had ever been adjudicated mentally defective or been committed to a mental institution (although in both instances 

he was not, and that was known to Gun World); on one 

form, Gun World omitted the initial NICS response (although the form also indicated an approval number); and 

on one form, the firearm manufacturer was not expressly 

stated (although it was known by the serial number and 

model). 

Gun World prepared approximately 880 ‘‘Forms 4473’’, and only 

12 of those documents contained alleged errors or omissions. Thus, 

there were omissions on 1.4 percent of Gun World’s Forms. 

In the period from January, 1999 through February, 2000, Form 

4473 contained 39 blocks for recording 58 items of information 

(legal alien purchasers, are required to provide an additional four 

items of information). Thus, for approximately 880 Form 4473s, 

there were approximately 34,320 blocks to be completed or approximately 51,240 items of information to be provided. 

On the 12 Forms on which BATFE found omissions, Gun World 

failed to complete, or to ensure that the purchaser completed, 16 

blocks; i.e., to provide 19 items of information. Accordingly, there 

were omissions on a minuscule .05 percent (5/100 percent) of the 

blocks or .04 percent (4/100 percent) of the items of information on 

Gun World’s Form 4473s. The experience of Gun World demonstrates why Congress needs to establish a ‘‘willfully’’ standard 

for civil actions against FFLs. 

Section 4 establishes a definition of the term ‘‘willfully’’ for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 923(e). The purpose of the definition is to clarify and codify Congress’ intent when it enacted the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 (‘‘FOPA’’), i.e., to ensure that licenses are 

not revoked for inadvertent or unintentional errors, but only for 

knowing, intentional actions by a licensee. It’s entirely reasonable 

to require the government to prove bad intent (knowledge of the 

law, and the intent to violate it) before putting a dealer out of business or under this legislation imposing stiff fines or a license suspension. However, a dealer cannot evade its responsibilities by intentionally ignoring the law, or simply stating that he or she was 

unaware of the requirements of the law. The doctrine of ‘‘willful 

blindness’’ would still apply under this new definition of ‘‘willful.’’ 

A FFL’s signing of a certification that he or she has read and is 

familiar with the rules applicable to his or her license issuance, is 

prima facie evidence that he or she knows and understands his or 

her licensee duties. 

8 

1 As Kennedy, J. has noted: 

We all tend toward myopia when looking for our own erros. Every lawyer and every judge 

can recite examples of documents that they wrote, checked, and doublechecked, but that still 

contained glaring errors. 

Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 568 (2004) (Kennedy, J., disenting). 2S. Rep. No. 98–583 at 88. 

The Committee recognizes that, despite the best efforts of a lawabiding business person, errors will occur and the Committee believes that mere human error should not deprive a licensee of his 

or her livelihood.1 This definition is intended to reverse court decisions that have interpreted ‘‘willfully’’ (as enacted by the FOPA) 

not to require proof that the licensee knew of his legal duty and 

intentionally disregarded that duty: see e.g., Appalachian Resources Dev. Corp. v. McCabe, 387 F.3d 461 (6th Cir. 2004); Stein’s 

Inc. v. Blumenthal, 649 F.2d 463 (7th Cir. 1980); Article II Gun 

Shop, Inc. v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2006); Lewin v. 

Blumenthal, 590 F.2d 268 (8th Cir. 1979); Perri v. Dep’t of Treasury, 637 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1981); Cucchiara v. Secretary of the 

Treasury, 652 F.2d 28 (9th Cir. 1981); and Willingham Sports, Inc. 

v. BATFE, 415 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2005). 

The Subcommittee received testimony that the BATFE treats virtually all errors in dealers records, no matter how few or how 

minor, as willful violations. Any error may result in license revocation. For example, a witness cited the fact that a licensee received 

a revocation notice for a ‘‘Y’’ or an ‘‘N’’ instead of writing out ‘‘Yes’’ 

or ‘‘No’’ on a firearms transaction form. Another revocation notice 

cited the failure of a firearms purchaser to identify the county of 

residence, although the purchaser listed the city of residence. The 

Committee also received testimony that BATFE cited violations 

from 10 or 20 years earlier as supporting a revocation notice. 

These acts do not constitute the ‘‘willful’’ standard Congress 

adopted in the FOPA. The Senate Judiciary Committee Report 

stated, the purpose of adding ‘‘willfully’’ to the license revocation 

procedure ‘‘is to ensure that licenses are not revoked for inadvertent errors or technical mistakes.’’ 2 But BATFE continues to refute this interpretation. In fact, in one case, BATFE argued to the 

court that Congress’ addition of the word ‘‘willfully’’ to the license 

revocation statute was ‘‘without practical significance.’’ 

GUN SHOW INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT

The Subcommittee on Crime’s oversight hearings reviewed the 

BATFE’s activities related to Richmond, Virginia gun show operations. The testimony showed that between May of 2004 and August of 2005, BATFE conducted a series of eight gun show enforcement operations in the Richmond area. BATFE’s enforcement activity had such a chilling effect on lawful purchases by legitimate customers exercising their Second amendment rights, that many potential purchasers simply walked away from the transaction as a 

result of the wait time. 

During these gun shows, BATFE admitted to stopping and interviewing approximately 206 individuals as a result of their attendance or purchase of a firearm at the gun show. Additionally, 50 individuals had their firearms seized by BATFE and were provided 

with a letter indicating that these individuals may have knowingly 

made a false statement to a firearms dealer, a crime punishable by 

9 

imprisonment for up to five years. These 50 individuals were ordered to appear at the local BATFE office to discuss their transactions and were warned that failure to appear could result in a 

warrant for arrest. 

BATFE’s allocation of resources; its gun enforcement program in 

Richmond and other cities has raised serious questions that the Inspector General needs to review. Section 6 of H.R. 5092 contains 

a provision requiring the Inspector General to conduct an oversight 

report on BATFE’s operations. The Inspector General’s report will 

help us to examine other critical issues and ensure that BATFE remains focused on its mission. 

LIQUIDATION OF INVENTORY

Section 8 of the bill allows a licensee whose license was terminated or revoked 60 days to liquidate his or her inventory—dispose, 

sell or otherwise legally transfer inventory to purchasers. This provision simply allows a dealer to close down the business in an orderly manner. The licensee must still comply with all applicable 

law and regulations, including the normal background check and 

record-keeping requirements. If the licensee does not, he or she is 

subject to graduated sanctions as set out in section 2 of the bill. 

HEARINGS

The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings specifically on 

H.R. 5092. However, prior to H.R. 5092 being introduced, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security conducted 

three oversight hearings regarding BATFE’s actions. 

The first hearing was held on February 15, 2006, and the following witnesses appeared: Annette Gelles, Owner, Showmaster 

Gun Shows; James Lalime, Gun Salesman; John White, Owner, 

The Gunsmith; and Suzanne McComas, Licensed Field Investigator 

in the State of New York. The second hearing was held on February 28, 2006, and received testimony from three witnesses: Michael R. Bouchard, Assistant Director (Field Operations), Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Lt. Col. D.A. Middleton, 

Deputy Chief of Police, Henrico County Police Department; and 

Major David McCoy, City of Richmond Police Department. The 

final hearing took place on March 28, 2006, at which the following 

witnesses testified: Audrey Stucko, Deputy Assistant Director for 

Enforcement Programs & Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives; Richard Gardiner, Attorney at Law in 

Virginia; Lt. Michael Lara, Officer, City of Tucson Police Department: and M. Kristen Rand, Legislative Director, Violence Policy 

Center. 

H.R. 5092 addresses concerns that were raised at each of those 

hearings. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On May 3, 2006, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 5092, by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

On September 7, 2006, the Committee met in open session and ordered the bill H.R. 5092 favorably reported by voice vote, a quorum 

being present. 

10 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there were the 

following roll call votes occurred during the committee’s consideration of H.R. 5092. 

Date: 9–7–06 

Rollcall No. 2 

Subject: Roll to record presence of Members to consider amendments to H.R. 5092—there were 14 Members present. 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde .................................................................................................................. .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Coble ................................................................................................................. .................... .................... X 

Mr. Smith ................................................................................................................ .................... .................... X 

Mr. Gallegly ............................................................................................................. .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Goodlatte .......................................................................................................... .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Chabot .............................................................................................................. .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Lungren ............................................................................................................. .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Jenkins .............................................................................................................. .................... .................... X 

Mr. Cannon ............................................................................................................. .................... .................... X 

Mr. Bachus .............................................................................................................. .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Inglis ................................................................................................................. .................... .................... X 

Mr. Hostettler .......................................................................................................... .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Green ................................................................................................................ .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Keller ................................................................................................................. .................... .................... X 

Mr. Issa ................................................................................................................... .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Flake ................................................................................................................. .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Pence ................................................................................................................ .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Forbes ............................................................................................................... .................... .................... ...................

Mr. King .................................................................................................................. .................... .................... X 

Mr. Feeney ............................................................................................................... .................... .................... X 

Mr. Franks ............................................................................................................... .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Gohmert ............................................................................................................ .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Conyers ............................................................................................................. .................... .................... X 

Mr. Berman ............................................................................................................. .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Boucher ............................................................................................................. .................... .................... X 

Mr. Nadler ............................................................................................................... .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Scott ................................................................................................................. .................... .................... X 

Mr. Watt .................................................................................................................. .................... .................... ...................

Ms. Lofgren ............................................................................................................. .................... .................... ...................

Ms. Jackson Lee ...................................................................................................... .................... .................... ...................

Ms. Waters .............................................................................................................. .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Meehan ............................................................................................................. .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Delahunt ........................................................................................................... .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Wexler ............................................................................................................... .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Weiner ............................................................................................................... .................... .................... X 

Mr. Schiff ................................................................................................................ .................... .................... ...................

Ms. Sanchez ............................................................................................................ .................... .................... ...................

Mr. Van Hollen ........................................................................................................ .................... .................... ...................

Mrs. Wasserman Schultz ........................................................................................ .................... .................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .............................................................................. .................... .................... X 

Total ............................................................................................................... .................... .................... 14 

Rollcall No. 3 

Subject: Weiner amendment (#313) to the Coble amendment in 

the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5092, to strike lanaguage that 

provides a Federal firearm licensee 60 days to liquidate its inventory after going out of business, was not agreed to by a rollcall vote 

of 4 ayes to 18 nays. 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde .................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

11 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Coble ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Smith ................................................................................................................ ................... X ...................

Mr. Gallegley ........................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Goodlatte .......................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Chabot .............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Lungren ............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Jenkins .............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Cannon ............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Bachus .............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Inglis ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Hostlettler ......................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Green ................................................................................................................ ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Keller ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Issa ................................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Flake ................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Pence ................................................................................................................ ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Forbes ............................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. King .................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Feeney ............................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Franks ............................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Gohmert ............................................................................................................ ................... X ...................

Mr. Conyers ............................................................................................................. X ................... ...................

Mr. Berman ............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Boucher ............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Nadler ............................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Scott ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Watt .................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Ms. Lofgren ............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Ms. Jackson Lee ...................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Ms. Waters .............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Meehan ............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Delahunt ........................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Wexler ............................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Weiner ............................................................................................................... X ................... ...................

Mr. Schiff ................................................................................................................ X ................... ...................

Ms. Sanchez ............................................................................................................ ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Van Hollen ........................................................................................................ ................... ................... ...................

Mrs. Wasserman Schultz ........................................................................................ X ................... ...................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .............................................................................. ................... X ...................

Total ............................................................................................................... 4 18 ...................

Date: 9–7–06 

Rollcall No. 4 

Subject: Weiner amendment (#314) to the Coble amendment in 

the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5092, to strike language regarding the Attorney General’s pursuing civil sanctions against a licensee which has also been a defendant in a criminal action, was 

not agreed to by a roll call vote of 9 ayes to 16 nays. 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde .................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Coble ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Smith ................................................................................................................ ................... X ...................

Mr. Gallegly ............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Goodlatte .......................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Chabot .............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Lungren ............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Jenkins .............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Cannon ............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Bachus .............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Inglis ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Hostettler .......................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Green ................................................................................................................ ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Keller ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

12 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Issa ................................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Flake ................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Pence ................................................................................................................ ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Forbes ............................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. King .................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Feeney ............................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Franks ............................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Gohmert ............................................................................................................ ................... X ...................

Mr. Conyers ............................................................................................................. X ................... ...................

Mr. Berman ............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Boucher ............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Nadler ............................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Scott ................................................................................................................. X ................... ...................

Mr. Watt .................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Ms. Lofgren ............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Ms. Jackson Lee ...................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Ms. Waters .............................................................................................................. X ................... ...................

Mr. Meehan ............................................................................................................. X ................... ...................

Mr. Delahunt ........................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Wexler ............................................................................................................... X ................... ...................

Mr. Weiner ............................................................................................................... X ................... ...................

Mr. Schiff ................................................................................................................ X ................... ...................

Ms. Sanchez ............................................................................................................ ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Van Hollen ........................................................................................................ X ................... ...................

Mrs. Wasserman Schultz ........................................................................................ X ................... ...................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .............................................................................. ................... X ...................

Total ............................................................................................................... 9 16 ...................

Date: 9–7–06 

Rollcall No. 5 

Subject: Weiner amendment (#317) to the Coble amendment in 

the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5092, to amend the maximum 

amount of fines a Federal firearm licensee would be subject to if 

it violated section 923 of title 18, U.S.C., which was not agreed to 

by a roll call vote of 8 ayes to 20 nays. 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde .................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Coble ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Smith ................................................................................................................ ................... X ...................

Mr. Gallegly ............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Goodlatte .......................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Chabot .............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Lungren ............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Jenkins .............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Cannon ............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Bachus .............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Inglis ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Hostettler .......................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Green ................................................................................................................ ................... X ...................

Mr. Keller ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Issa ................................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Flake ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Pence ................................................................................................................ ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Forbes ............................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. King .................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Feeney ............................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Franks ............................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Gohmert ............................................................................................................ ................... X ...................

Mr. Conyers ............................................................................................................. X ................... ...................

Mr. Berman ............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Boucher ............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Nadler ............................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Scott ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

13 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Watt .................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Ms. Lofgren ............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Ms. Jackson Lee ...................................................................................................... X ................... ...................

Ms. Waters .............................................................................................................. X ................... ...................

Mr. Meehan ............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Delahunt ........................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Wexler ............................................................................................................... X ................... ...................

Mr. Weiner ............................................................................................................... X ................... ...................

Mr. Schiff ................................................................................................................ X ................... ...................

Ms. Sanchez ............................................................................................................ ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Van Hollen ........................................................................................................ X ................... ...................

Mrs. Wasserman Schultz ........................................................................................ X ................... ...................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .............................................................................. ................... X ...................

Total ............................................................................................................... 8 20 ...................

Date: 9–7–06 

Rollcall No. 6 

Subject: Jackson Lee amendment to the Coble amendment in the 

nature of a substitute to H.R. 5092, to strike the definition of ‘‘willfully’’, which was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 9 ayes to 17 

nays. 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde .................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Coble ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Smith ................................................................................................................ ................... X ...................

Mr. Gallegly ............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Goodlatte .......................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Chabot .............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Lungren ............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Jenkins .............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Cannon ............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Bachus .............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Inglis ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Hostettler .......................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Green ................................................................................................................ ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Keller ................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Issa ................................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Flake ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Pence ................................................................................................................ ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Forbes ............................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. King .................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Feeney ............................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Franks ............................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Gohmert ............................................................................................................ ................... X ...................

Mr. Conyers ............................................................................................................. X ................... ...................

Mr. Berman ............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Boucher ............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Nadler ............................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Scott ................................................................................................................. X ................... ...................

Mr. Watt .................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Lofgren .............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Ms. Jackson Lee ...................................................................................................... X ................... ...................

Ms. Waters .............................................................................................................. X ................... ...................

Mr. Meehan ............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Delahunt ........................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Wexler ............................................................................................................... X ................... ...................

Mr. Weiner ............................................................................................................... X ................... ...................

Mr. Schiff ................................................................................................................ X ................... ...................

Ms. Sanchez ............................................................................................................ ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Van Hollen ........................................................................................................ X ................... ...................

Mrs. Wasserman Schultz ........................................................................................ X ................... ...................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .............................................................................. ................... X ...................

14 

Ayes Nays Present 

Total ...................................................................................................... 9 17 ...................

Date: 9–7–06 

Rollcall No. 7 

Subject: Weiner amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 

5092, to amend the Attorney General’s ability to sanction licensed 

dealers that violate Section 923 of title 18, U.S.C., which was not 

agreed to by a roll call vote of 10 ayes to 16 nays. 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde .................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Coble ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Smith ................................................................................................................ ................... X ...................

Mr. Gallegly ............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Goodlatte .......................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Chabot .............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Lungren ............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Jenkins .............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Cannon ............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Bachus .............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Inglis ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Hostettler .......................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Green ................................................................................................................ ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Keller ................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Issa ................................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Flake ................................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Pence ................................................................................................................ ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Forbes ............................................................................................................... X ................... ...................

Mr. King .................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Feeney ............................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Franks ............................................................................................................... ................... X ...................

Mr. Gohmert ............................................................................................................ ................... X ...................

Mr. Conyers ............................................................................................................. X ................... ...................

Mr. Berman ............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Boucher ............................................................................................................. ................... X ...................

Mr. Nadler ............................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Scott ................................................................................................................. X ................... ...................

Mr. Watt .................................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Ms. Lofgren ............................................................................................................. ................... ................... ...................

Ms. Jackson Lee ...................................................................................................... X ................... ...................

Ms. Waters .............................................................................................................. X ................... ...................

Mr. Meehan ............................................................................................................. X ................... ...................

Mr. Delahunt ........................................................................................................... ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Wexler ............................................................................................................... X ................... ...................

Mr. Weiner ............................................................................................................... X ................... ...................

Mr. Schiff ................................................................................................................ X ................... ...................

Ms. Sanchez ............................................................................................................ ................... ................... ...................

Mr. Van Hollen ........................................................................................................ X ................... ...................

Mrs. Wasserman Schultz ........................................................................................ X ................... ...................

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .............................................................................. ................... X ...................

Total ............................................................................................................... 10 16 ...................

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

15 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 5092, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

H.R. 5092—Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 

(BATFE) Modernization and Reform Act of 2006 

Summary: H.R. 5092 would authorize the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) to impose civil fines for 

violations of firearms laws. It also would change the procedures 

BATFE uses to approve applications for firearms licenses and how 

the agency prosecutes license violations. Finally, the bill would require administrative law judges to review certain BATFE actions. 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5092 would cost about $50 million over the 2007–2011 period, assuming appropriation of 

the necessary amounts. Enacting the bill could affect revenues, but 

CBO estimates that any such effects would not be significant. H.R. 

5092 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 

defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 5092 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 750 (administration 

of justice). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................................ 7 10 11 12 12 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................................... 7 10 11 12 12 

Basis of estimate 

CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 5092 would cost about 

$50 million over the 2007–2011 period. For this estimate, CBO assumes that the necessary amounts will be appropriated near the 

start of each fiscal year and that spending will follow historical 

patterns for similar activities. In addition, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would have an insignificant effect on revenues. 

Spending Subject to Appropriation 

H.R. 5092 would require administrative law judges to review 

BATFE actions that are disputed by firearms licensees and applicants, including suspensions and revocations of licenses, denials of 

applications, and fines. BATFE has 23 field divisions in the United 

States and the agency expects it would need to hire 20 judges to 

review actions in these divisions. Based on information from 

16 

BATFE, CBO expects that annual costs for each administrative law 

judge would total about $325,000, including salaries, benefits, and 

support expenses. Thus, we estimate that costs relating to administrative law judges would total $6.5 million a year when fully implemented in 2008. 

BATFE also expects that it would need to hire one attorney for 

each field division, mostly to prepare for hearings before administrative law judges. Based on a cost of about $160,000 per attorney, 

including salaries, benefits, and support expenses, CBO estimates 

that it would cost nearly $4 million annually for the additional attorneys when fully implemented in 2008. In addition, we expect 

that BATFE would spend about $2 million in 2007 for enhanced 

computer systems, mostly to record the new civil fines and implement the new administrative procedures that would be established 

by H.R. 5092. 

Revenues 

BATFE currently lacks the authority to impose civil fines on violators of firearms laws. Under the provisions of H.R. 5092, such 

violators could be subject to civil fines, so the federal government 

might collect additional fines if the legislation is enacted. Civil 

fines are recorded as revenues and deposited in the Treasury. CBO 

expects that any additional revenues would not be significant because the bill would limit the amount of penalties that could be imposed on violators. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 5092 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Mark Grabowicz; Impact on 

state, local, and tribal governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact on the 

private sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in article I, section 8, of the Constitution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Sec. 1. Short title 

This section cites the short title of the bill as the ‘‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2006.’’ 

Sec. 2. Graduated penalties for civil violations by federal firearms 

licensees 

This section provides ATF with the ability to impose graduated 

civil penalties against persons who violate any statute or regulation in ATF’s jurisdiction. The penalties are graduated based on 

17 

whether the violation is a ‘‘serious’’ or ‘‘non-serious’’ violation. A 

‘‘serious’’ violation is defined as one that; (1) results in, or could 

have resulted in, the transfer of a firearm or ammunition to a person prohibited from possessing or receiving the firearm or ammunition under chapter 44; (2) obstructs or could have obstructed a 

bona fide civil or criminal investigation; or (3) prevents or could 

have prevented a licensee from complying with subsection (g)(7). A 

‘‘non-serious’’ violation is one that is not covered by the definition 

for ‘‘serious’’ violation. 

For a serious violation, ATF may impose a civil penalty of not 

more than $2,500 for each violation, up to a maximum of $15,000, 

suspend the license for up to 90 days, or revoke the license. For a 

‘‘non-serious’’ violation, ATF may impose a civil penalty of not more 

than $1,000 for each violation, up to a maximum of $5,000, and 

may suspend a license for not more than 30 days if the licensee has 

at least 2 prior violations (serious or non-serious). The violationspecific limitation is designed to operate as a cap. ATF would have 

discretion to set a graduated scale of penalties up to that maximum 

($1,000 and $2,500 per non-serious and serious violation, respectively) to reflect the nature and severity of the violation, the size 

of the firearms business operated by the licensee, and the prior 

record of the licensee. 

The section also bars ATF from initiating a civil enforcement action after five years from the date of the violation, except if the licensee intentionally obstructed discovery of the violation. This section also reforms existing law on due process hearings to permit a 

licensee subject to an enforcement order to seek a hearing before 

an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and sets deadlines for the completion of such a hearing. by streamlining the hearing process and 

requiring an independent Administrative Law Judge to conduct 

such a hearing, the intent is to expedite resolution of enforcement 

matters and to ensure a fair and consistent review of potential violations. Any enforcement order would be stayed pending review. 

The ALJ’s determination would be subject to court review as provided in existing law and would retain the de novo standard for 

district court and appellate review. 

Sec. 3. Consideration of federal firearms license applications 

This section provides procedures for preliminary consideration of 

license applications, and affords applicants with an opportunity to 

supplement the application with additional information and with 

the ability to request a hearing before an ALJ. 

Sec. 4. Definition of willfully 

This section clarifies the definition of ‘‘willfully’’ when establishing the intent for a violation. The intent standard, as applied 

to licensees, would reflect the fact that licensees 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 an obligation. 

18 

Sec. 5. Establishment of formal inspection, examination, and investigative guidelines 

This section requires that ATF establish formal investigative 

guidelines similar to those already applicable to the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Sec. 6. Review by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice 

of the Gun Show Enforcement Program; Report 

This section requires the Inspector General to conduct a review 

of ATF’s operation in order to assess the manner in which ATF 

conducts its gun show enforcement program and blanket residency 

checks of prospective and actual firearms purchasers. Within one 

year of enactment, the IG is required to submit to the House and 

Senate Judiciary Committees a report as to its findings in its review. 

Sec. 7. Limitations on use of firearms purchaser information 

This section amends 18 U.S.C. section 923(g)(1)(D) to ensure that 

AFT only shares information about individuals gathered in its enforcement programs with other law enforcement agencies when 

such agency certifies that the agency will not disclose such information to any nongovernmental entity. The intent in this provision 

is to endure that sharing of information among law enforcement 

agencies does not result in disclosures of private information to 

non-governmental entities which are not involved in law enforcement efforts. Such a prohibition would not extend to private contractors who work for law enforcement agencies (e.g. intelligence 

support or other law enforcement activities) 

Sec. 8. Liquidation of inventory in federal firearms license expiration, surrender or revocation cases 

This section amends section 923 of title 18 to ensure that a person has 60 days to liquidate the firearms inventory of a business, 

which shall be extended for reasonable cause. 

Sec. 10. Opportunity to cure violations after acquisition of firearms 

business 

This section amends section 923 of title 18 to provide a purchaser 

of a firearms business with an opportunity to cure any violations 

and limits ATF’s ability to impose penalties for violations that may 

have existed prior to a transferee assuming control of the business. 

Sec. 11. Standards or criminal violations of record-keeping requirements 

This section amends section 922(m) of title 18 to require that any 

criminal violation of the record-keeping requirements involve ‘‘materially’’ false entries, and ‘‘materially’’ significant entry. The punishment for such a violation is a one year misdemeanor. 

Sec. 12. Effective date 

This section provides that the effective date of the Act is to be 

180 days after enactment. 

19 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART I—CRIMES 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 44—FIREARMS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 922. Unlawful acts 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(m) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector knowingly to make 

øany false entry¿ a materially false entry in, to fail to make øappropriate entry¿ a materially significant entry in, or to fail to 

øproperly maintain¿ retain custody of, any record which he is required to keep pursuant to section 923 of this chapter or regulations promulgated thereunder. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 923. Licensing 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d)(1) * * * 

(2) The Attorney General shall make a preliminary determination 

as to whether to approve or deny an application submitted under 

subsection (a) or (b). If the preliminary determination is to deny the 

application, the Attorney General shall notify the applicant in writing of the preliminary determination and the reasons for the preliminary determination, and shall afford the applicant an opportunity to supplement the application with additional information 

and to request a hearing on the application. If the applicant, in a 

timely manner, requests such a hearing, the Attorney General shall 

hold the hearing at a location convenient to the applicant, and shall 

notify the applicant in writing of the time and place of the hearing. 

ø(2)¿ (3) The Attorney General must approve or deny an application for a license within the 60-day period beginning on the date 

it is received. If the Attorney General fails to act within such period, the applicant may file an action under section 1361 of title 28 

to compel the Attorney General to act. If the Attorney General apVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:58 Sep 23, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR672.XXX HR672
20 

proves an applicant’s application, such applicant shall be issued a 

license upon the payment of the prescribed fee. 

(4) If the Attorney General denies an application for a license, 

an administrative law judge of the Department of Justice shall, 

on request by the aggrieved party, promptly hold a hearing to 

review the denial, at a location convenient to the aggrieved 

party. If, after the hearing, the administrative law judge decides not to reverse the denial, the administrative law judge 

shall give notice of the final denial decision to the aggrieved 

party. 

ø(e) The Attorney General may, after notice and opportunity for 

hearing, revoke any license issued under this section if the holder 

of such license has willfully violated any provision of this chapter 

or any rule or regulation prescribed by the Attorney General under 

this chapter or fails to have secure gun storage or safety devices 

available at any place in which firearms are sold under the license 

to persons who are not licensees (except that in any case in which 

a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable because of theft, casualty loss, consumer sales, backorders from a 

manufacturer, or any other similar reason beyond the control of the 

licensee, the dealer shall not be considered to be in violation of the 

requirement to make available such a device). The Attorney General may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, revoke the license of a dealer who willfully transfers armor piercing ammunition. The Secretary’s action under this subsection may be reviewed 

only as provided in subsection (f) of this section. 

ø(f)(1) Any person whose application for a license is denied and 

any holder of a license which is revoked shall receive a written notice from the Attorney General stating specifically the grounds 

upon which the application was denied or upon which the license 

was revoked. Any notice of a revocation of a license shall be given 

to the holder of such license before the effective date of the revocation. 

ø(2) If the Attorney General denies an application for, or revokes, 

a license, he shall, upon request by the aggrieved party, promptly 

hold a hearing to review his denial or revocation. In the case of a 

revocation of a license, the Attorney General shall upon the request 

of the holder of the license stay the effective date of the revocation. 

A hearing held under this paragraph shall be held at a location 

convenient to the aggrieved party. 

ø(3) If after a hearing held under paragraph (2) the Attorney 

General decides not to reverse his decision to deny an application 

or revoke a license, the Attorney General shall give notice of his 

decision to the aggrieved party. The aggrieved party may at any 

time within sixty days after the date notice was given under this 

paragraph file a petition with the United States district court for 

the district in which he resides or has his principal place of business for a de novo judicial review of such denial or revocation. In 

a proceeding conducted under this subsection, the court may consider any evidence submitted by the parties to the proceeding 

whether or not such evidence was considered at the hearing held 

under paragraph (2). If the court decides that the Attorney General 

was not authorized to deny the application or to revoke the license, 

the court shall order the Attorney General to take such action as 

may be necessary to comply with the judgment of the court. 

21 

ø(4) If criminal proceedings are instituted against a licensee alleging any violation of this chapter or of rules or regulations prescribed under this chapter, and the licensee is acquitted of such 

charges, or such proceedings are terminated, other than upon motion of the Government before trial upon such charges, the Attorney General shall be absolutely barred from denying or revoking 

any license granted under this chapter where such denial or revocation is based in whole or in part on the facts which form the 

basis of such criminal charges. No proceedings for the revocation 

of a license shall be instituted by the Attorney General more than 

one year after the filing of the indictment or information.¿ 

(e)(1)(A) If the Attorney General determines that a licensee under 

this section has willfully violated any provision of this chapter or 

any regulation prescribed under this chapter, the Attorney General 

may— 

(i) if the violation is of a minor nature, or if the violation is 

that the licensee has failed to have secure gun storage or safety 

devices available at any place in which firearms are sold under 

the license to persons who are not licensees (except because of 

theft, casualty loss, consumer sales, back orders from a manufacturer, or any other similar reason beyond the control of the 

licensee)— 

(I) impose on the licensee a civil money penalty of not more than $1,000 for each such violation, except that the 

total amount of penalties imposed on a licensee under this 

subclause for violations arising from a single inspection or 

examination shall not exceed $5,000; or 

(II) suspend the license for not more than 30 days, and 

specify the circumstances under which the suspension is to 

be terminated, if, in the period for which the license is in 

effect, there have been at least 2 prior occasions on which 

the licensee has been determined to have violated this chapter; or 

(ii) if the violation is of a serious nature— 

(I) impose on the licensee a civil money penalty of not 

more than $2,500 for each such violation, except that the 

total amount of penalties imposed on a licensee under this 

subclause for a violations arising from a single inspection 

or examination shall not exceed $15,000; 

(II) suspend the license for not more than 90 days, and 

specify the circumstances under which the suspension is to 

be terminated; 

(III) revoke the license; or 

(IV) take the actions described in subclauses (I) and (II), 

or subclauses (I) and (III). 

(B)(i)(I) In determining the amount of a civil money penalty to impose under subparagraph (A) on a licensee, the nature and severity 

of the violation involved, the size of the firearms business operated 

by the licensee, and the prior record of the licensee shall be considered. 

(II) On request of the licensee, the Attorney General may consider 

the ability of the licensee to pay a civil money penalty, and may 

allow the licensee to submit documents and information to establish 

the ability of the licensee to pay. The Attorney General shall not 

make part of any public record any document or information so subVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:58 Sep 23, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR672.XXX HR672
22 

mitted, and shall return to the licensee any such document or information. 

(III) The total amount of penalties imposed on a licensee under 

subparagraph (A) with respect to violations of a minor nature and 

of a serious nature arising from a single inspection or examination 

shall not exceed $15,000. 

(ii) For purposes of subparagraph (A), violation of a provision of 

this chapter with respect to 2 or more firearms during a single 

transaction shall be considered a single violation of the provision. 

(iii) The Attorney General may defer, or suspend, in whole or in 

part, the imposition of a civil money penalty on a licensee whose license is suspended under this paragraph. 

(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A): 

(i) A violation of this chapter shall be considered to be of a 

serious nature if the violation— 

(I) results in or could have resulted in the transfer of a 

firearm or ammunition to a person prohibited from possessing or receiving the firearm or ammunition under this 

chapter or under State or local law; 

(II) obstructs or could have obstructedμaμbona fide criminal investigation or prosecution, or an inspection or examination under this chapter; or 

(III) prevents or could have prevented a licensee from 

complying with subsection (a)(7), (a)(8), (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4), 

(j), (k), (o), or (p) of section 922, subsection (g)(7) of this section, or subsection (b) or (h) of section 924. 

(ii) A violation of this chapter shall be considered to be of a 

minor nature if the violation is not of a serious nature. 

(D) The Attorney General may not commence an enforcement action under subparagraph (A) with respect to a violation, after the 

5-year period that begins with— 

(i) the date the violation occurred; or 

(ii) if the licensee intentionally obstructed discovery of the violation, the date the violation is discovered. 

(2)(A) Not less than 30 days before the effective date of any penalty imposed on a licensee by reason of a determination made under 

paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall send the licensee a written notice— 

(i) of the determination, and the grounds on which the determination was made; 

(ii) of the nature of the penalty; and 

(iii) that the licensee may, within 30 days after receipt of the 

notice, request a hearing to review the determination. 

(B) A hearing to review a determination made under paragraph 

(1) with respect to a licensee shall not be held unless the licensee 

requests such a hearing within 30 days after receiving the notice of 

the determination sent pursuant to subparagraph (A). 

(C) On timely receipt from the licensee of a request for such a review, the Attorney General shall stay the imposition under paragraph (1) of any penalty involved, pending resolution of the review, 

unless, in the case of a suspension or revocation of a licensee, the 

Attorney General establishes, at a hearing before an administrative 

law judge, by clear and convincing evidence, that— 

23 

(i) the licensee or the principal owner of the business subject to the license has been indicted and charged with a 

criminal violation of this chapter; and 

(ii) the continued operation by the licensee of the business 

poses an immediate and grave threat to public safety. 

(3)(A) Within 90 days after timely receipt from a licensee of a request to review a determination made under paragraph (1) (or at 

such later time as is agreed to by the Attorney General and the licensee), an administrative law judge shall hold a hearing, at a location convenient to the licensee, to review the determination. 

(B) Not less than 30 days before the hearing, the Attorney General 

shall deliver to the licensee— 

(i) a document identifying each person whom the Attorney General intends to call as a witness during the hearing; 

(ii) a copy of each document which will be introduced as 

evidence at the hearing; and 

(iii) copies of all documents on which the determination 

is based. 

(C) Within 90 days after the hearing, the administrative law 

judge shall issue a written decision setting forth findings of fact and 

conclusions of law, and a decision as to whether to affirm, modify, 

or reverse the determination. 

(D) On request of the licensee, the Attorney General shall stay the 

effective date of any penalty, suspension, or revocation until there 

has been a final, nonreviewable judgment with respect to the determination involved, unless, in the case of a suspension or revocation 

of a licensee, the Attorney General establishes, at a hearing before 

an administrative law judge, by clear and convincing evidence, 

that— 

(i) the licensee or the principal owner of the business subject 

to the license has been indicted and charged with a criminal 

violation of this chapter; and 

(ii) the continued operation by the licensee of the business 

poses an immediate and grave threat to public safety. 

(E) The action of an administrative law judge under this subsection shall be considered final agency action for all purposes, and 

may be reviewed only as provided in subsection (f). 

(4) This subsection shall not be interpreted to affect the authority 

of the Attorney General under section 922(t)(5). 

(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘willfully’’ means, 

with respect to conduct of a person, that the person knew of a legal 

duty, and engaged in the conduct knowingly and in intentional disregard of the duty. 

(f)(1) Within 60 days after a party receives a notice issued under 

subsection (d)(4) of a decision to deny a license, or a notice issued 

under subsection (e)(3)(C) of a determination to impose a civil 

money penalty or to suspend or revoke a license, the party may file 

a petition with the United States district court for the district in 

which the party resides or has a principal place of business for a 

de novo review of the decision or determination. 

(2) In a proceeding conducted under this paragraph, the court 

shall, on application of a party, consider any evidence submitted by 

the parties to the proceeding whether or not the evidence was considered at the hearing held under subsection (d)(4) or (e)(3). 

24 

(3) If the court decides that the decision or determination was not 

authorized, the court shall order the Attorney General to take such 

action as may be necessary to comply with the judgment of the 

court. 

(4) If criminal proceedings are instituted against a licensee alleging any violation of this chapter or of a regulation prescribed under 

this chapter, and the licensee is acquitted of the charges, or the proceedings are terminated, other than upon motion of the Government 

before trial on the charges, the Attorney General shall be absolutely 

barred from denying a license under this chapter, suspending or revoking a license granted under this chapter, or imposing a civil 

money penalty under subsection (e), if the action would be based in 

whole or in part on the facts which form the basis of the criminal 

charges. 

(5) The Attorney General may not institute a proceeding to suspend or revoke a license granted under this chapter, or to impose 

a civil money penalty under subsection (e), more than 1 year after 

the filing of the indictment or information. 

(g)(1)(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) At the election of a licensed collector, the annual inspection 

of records and inventory permitted under this paragraph shall be 

performed at the office of the Attorney General designated for such 

inspections which is located in closest proximity to the premises 

where the inventory and records of such licensed collector are 

maintained. The inspection and examination authorized by this 

paragraph shall not be construed as authorizing the Attorney General to seize any records or other documents other than those 

records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation 

of law. If the Attorney General seizes such records or documents, 

copies shall be provided the licensee within a reasonable time. The 

Attorney General may make available to any Federal, State, or 

local law enforcement agency any information which he may obtain 

by reason of this chapter with respect to the identification of persons prohibited from purchasing or receiving firearms or ammunition who have purchased or received firearms or ammunition, together with a description of such firearms or ammunition, and he 

may provide information to the extent such information may be 

contained in the records required to be maintained by this chapter, 

when so requested by any Federal, State, or local law enforcement 

agency, except that information identifying a person who has purchased or received firearms or ammunition and who is not prohibited from doing so may not be so made available or so provided unless the agency involved has certified that the agency will not disclose the information to any entity other than a court, federal, State 

or local law enforcement agency, or prosecutor. 

* * * * * * * 

(m) A person whose license issued under this chapter is expired, 

surrendered, or revoked shall be afforded 60 days from the effective 

date of the expiration, surrender, or revocation to liquidate the firearms inventory of the person, which time may be extended upon a 

showing of reasonable cause. During such 60-day period (including 

any extension of the period), the license involved shall continue to 

be considered valid. 

25 

(n) If the Attorney General is made aware that a business licensed 

under this chapter has transferred to a surviving spouse or child of 

the licensee, to an executor, administrator, or other legal representative of a deceased licensee; or to a receiver or trustee in bankruptcy, 

or an assignee for benefit of creditors, and, before the transfer, or 

on the first inspection or examination by the Attorney General of the 

records of the licensee after the transfer, the licensee is found to be 

operating the business in violation of this chapter, the Attorney General— 

(1) shall notify the transferee of the violation by the transferor; and 

(2) shall not presume that the transferee is committing the 

violation. 

§ 924. Penalties 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(p) PENALTIES RELATING TO SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY

DEVICE.— 

ø(1) IN GENERAL.— 

ø(A) SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE; CIVIL PENALTIES.—With respect to each violation of section 922(z)(1) 

by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed 

dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for 

hearing— 

ø(i) suspend for not more than 6 months, or revoke, 

the license issued to the licensee under this chapter 

that was used to conduct the firearms transfer; or 

ø(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an 

amount equal to not more than $2,500. 

ø(B) REVIEW.—An action of the Secretary under this 

paragraph may be reviewed only as provided under section 

923(f). 

ø(2) ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.—The suspension or revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty under paragraph (1) shall not preclude any administrative remedy that is 

otherwise available to the Secretary.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

[Intervening business.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The next item on the agenda is the 

adoption of H.R. 5092, the ‘‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives Modernization Reform Act.’’ 

26 

[The bill, H.R. 5092, follows:] 

1

I

109TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5092

To modernize and reform the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and

Explosives.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 5, 2006

Mr. COBLE (for himself and Mr. SCOTT of Virginia) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To modernize and reform the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms, and Explosives.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bureau of Alcohol,

5 Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) Moderniza6 tion and Reform Act of 2006’’.


I5092.AAB
27 

2

•HR 5092 IH

1 SEC. 2. GRADUATED PENALTIES FOR CIVIL VIOLATIONS BY

2 FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 923 of title 18, United

4 States Code, is amended by striking subsections (e) and

5 (f) and inserting the following:

6 ‘‘(e)(1)(A) If the Attorney General determines that

7 a licensee under this section has willfully violated any pro8 vision of this chapter or any regulation prescribed under

9 this chapter, or has failed to have secure gun sotrage or

10 safety devices available at any place in which firearms are

11 sold under the license to persons who are not licensees

12 (except because of theft, casualty loss, consumer sales,

13 backorders from a manufacturer, or any other similar rea14 son beyond the control of the licensee), the Attorney Gen15 eral may—

16 ‘‘(i) if the violation is not of a serious nature—

17 ‘‘(I) impose on the licensee a civil money

18 penalty of not more than $1,000 for each such

19 violation, except that the total amount of pen20 alties imposed on a licensee under this sub21 clause for violations arising from a single in22 spection or examination shall not exceed

23 $5,000; or

24 ‘‘(II) suspend the license for not more than

25 30 days, and specify the circumstances under

26 which the suspension is to be terminated, if, in


I5092.AAC
28 

3

•HR 5092 IH

1 the period for which the license is in effect,

2 there have been at least 2 prior occasions on

3 which the licensee has been determined to have

4 violated this chapter; or

5 ‘‘(ii) if the violation is of a serious nature—

6 ‘‘(I) impose on the licensee a civil money

7 penalty of not more than $2,500 for each such

8 violation, except that the total amount of pen9 alties imposed on a licensee under this sub10 clause for a violations arising from a single in11 spection or examination shall not exceed

12 $15,000;

13 ‘‘(II) suspend the license for not more than

14 90 days, and specify the circumstances under

15 which the suspension is to be terminated;

16 ‘‘(III) revoke the license; or

17 ‘‘(IV) take the actions described in sub18 clauses (I) and (II), or subclauses (I) and (III).

19 ‘‘(B)(i) In determining the amount of a civil money

20 penalty to impose under subparagraph (A) on a licensee,

21 the nature and severity of the violation involved, the size

22 of the firearms business operated by the licensee, and the

23 prior record of the licensee shall be considered.

24 ‘‘(ii) For purposes of subparagraph (A), violation of

25 a provision of this chapter with respect to 2 or more fireVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:58 Sep 23, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR672.XXX HR672

I5092.AAD
29 

4

•HR 5092 IH

1 arms during a single transaction shall be considered a sin2 gle violation of the provision.

3 ‘‘(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), a violation

4 of this chapter shall be considered to be of a serious nature

5 if the violation—

6 ‘‘(i) results in or could have resulted in the

7 transfer of a firearm or ammunition to a person pro8 hibited from possessing or receiving the firearm or

9 ammunition under this chapter;

10 ‘‘(ii) obstructs or could have obstructed a bona

11 fide civil or criminal investigation or prosecution; or

12 ‘‘(iii) prevents or could have prevented a li13 censee from complying with subsection (g)(7).

14 ‘‘(D) The Attorney General may not commence an

15 enforcement action under subparagraph (A) with respect

16 to a violation after the 5-year period that begins with—

17 ‘‘(i) the date of the violation; or

18 ‘‘(ii) if the licensee involved intentionally ob19 structed discovery of the violation, the date of dis20 covery of the violation.

21 ‘‘(2)(A) Not less than 30 days before the effective

22 date of any penalty imposed on a licensee by reason of

23 a determination made under paragraph (1), the Attorney

24 General shall send the licensee a written notice of—


I5092.AAE
30 

5

•HR 5092 IH

1 ‘‘(i) the determination, and the grounds on

2 which the determination was made;

3 ‘‘(ii) the nature of the penalty; and

4 ‘‘(iii) how, and by when, the licensee may re5 quest a hearing to review the determination.

6 ‘‘(B) A hearing to review a determination made under

7 paragraph (1) with respect to a licensee shall not be held

8 unless the licensee requests such a hearing within 30 days

9 after receiving the notice of the determination sent pursu10 ant to subparagraph (A).

11 ‘‘(C) On timely receipt from the licensee of a request

12 for such a review, the Attorney General shall stay the im13 position under paragraph (1) of any penalty involved,

14 pending resolution of the review.

15 ‘‘(3)(A) Within 90 days after timely receipt from a

16 licensee of a request to review a determination made under

17 paragraph (1) (or at such later time as is agreed to by

18 the Attorney General and the licensee), an administrative

19 law judge shall hold a hearing, at a location convenient

20 to the licensee, to review the determination.

21 ‘‘(B) Not less than 30 days before the hearing, the

22 Attorney General shall deliver to the licensee a copy of

23 each document which will be introduced as evidence at the

24 hearing, and copies of all documents on which the deter25 mination is based.


I5092.AAF
31 

6

•HR 5092 IH

1 ‘‘(C) Within 90 days after the hearing, the adminis2 trative law judge shall issue a written decision setting

3 forth findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a deci4 sion as to whether to affirm, modify, or reverse the deter5 mination.

6 ‘‘(D) On request of the licensee, the Attorney General

7 shall stay the effective date of any penalty, suspension,

8 or revocation until there has been a final, nonreviewable

9 judgment with respect to the determination involved.

10 ‘‘(E) The action of an administrative law judge under

11 this subsection shall be considered final agency action for

12 all purposes, and may be reviewed only as provided in sub13 section (f).

14 ‘‘(4) This subsection shall not be interpreted to affect

15 the authority of the Attorney General under section

16 922(t)(5).

17 ‘‘(f)(1) Within 60 days after a party receives a notice

18 issued under subsection (d)(3) of a decision to deny a li19 cense, or a notice issued under subsection (e)(3)(C) of a

20 determination to impose a civil money penalty or to sus21 pend or revoke a license, the party may file a petition with

22 the United States district court for the district in which

23 the party resides or has a principal place of business for

24 a de novo review of the decision or determination.


I5092.AAG
32 

7

•HR 5092 IH

1 ‘‘(2) In a proceeding conducted under this paragraph,

2 the court shall, on application of a party, consider any evi3 dence submitted by the parties to the proceeding whether

4 or not the evidence was considered at the hearing held

5 under subsection (d)(3) or (e)(3).

6 ‘‘(3) If the court decides that the decision or deter7 mination was not authorized, the court shall order the At8 torney General to take such action as may be necessary

9 to comply with the judgment of the court.

10 ‘‘(4) If criminal proceedings are instituted against a

11 licensee alleging any violation of this chapter or of a regu12 lation prescribed under this chapter, and the licensee is

13 acquitted of the charges, or the proceedings are termi14 nated, other than upon motion of the Government before

15 trial on the charges, the Attorney General shall be abso16 lutely barred from denying a license under this chapter,

17 suspending or revoking a license granted under this chap18 ter, or imposing a civil money penalty under subsection

19 (e), if the action would be based in whole or in part on

20 the facts which form the basis of the criminal charges.

21 ‘‘(5) The Attorney General may not institute a pro22 ceeding to suspend or revoke a license granted under this

23 chapter, or to impose a civil money penalty under sub24 section (e), more than 1 year after the filing of the indict25 ment or information.’’.


I5092.AAH
33 

8

•HR 5092 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 923(d) of

2 such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

3 ‘‘(3) If the Attorney General denies an application

4 for a license, an administrative law judge of the Depart5 ment of Justice shall, on request by the aggrieved party,

6 promptly hold a hearing to review the denial, at a location

7 convenient to the aggrieved party. If, after the hearing,

8 the administrative law judge decides not to reverse the de9 nial, the administrative law judge shall give notice of the

10 final denial decision to the aggrieved party.’’.

11 SEC. 3. CONSIDERATION OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSE

12 APPLICATIONS.

13 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 923(d) of title 18, United

14 States Code, as amended by section 2(b) of this Act, is

15 amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as para16 graphs (3) and (4) and inserting after paragraph (1) the

17 following:

18 ‘‘(2) The Attorney General shall make a preliminary

19 determination as to whether to approve or deny an appli20 cation submitted under subsection (a) or (b). If the pre21 liminary determination is to deny the application, the At22 torney General shall notify the applicant in writing of the

23 preliminary determination and the reasons for the prelimi24 nary determination, and shall afford the applicant an op25 portunity to supplement the application with additional inVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:58 Sep 23, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR672.XXX HR672

I5092.AAI
34 

9

•HR 5092 IH

1 formation and to request a hearing on the application. If

2 the applicant, in a timely manner, requests such a hearing,

3 the Attorney General shall hold the hearing at a location

4 convenient to the applicant, and shall notify the applicant

5 in writing of the time and place of the hearing.’’.

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 923(f)(1)

7 of such title, as amended by section 2(a) of this Act, is

8 amended by striking ‘‘(d)(3)’’ each place it appears and

9 inserting ‘‘(d)(4)’’.

10 SEC. 4. DEFINITION OF WILLFULLY.

11 Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is

12 amended by adding at the end the following:

13 ‘‘(36) The term ‘willfully’ means intentionally, pur14 posely, and with the intent to act in violation of a known

15 legal duty.’’.

16 SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF FORMAL INVESTIGATIVE

17 GUIDELINES.

18 The Attorney General shall establish guidelines for

19 how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Ex20 plosives is to conduct investigations of possible violations

21 of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.


I5092.AAJ
35 

10

•HR 5092 IH

1 SEC. 6. REVIEW BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DE2 PARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF THE GUN SHOW

3 ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM; REPORT.

4 (a) REVIEW.—The Inspector General of the Depart5 ment of Justice shall conduct a review of the operations

6 of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explo7 sives, for the purpose of assessing the manner in which

8 the Bureau conducts the gun show enforcement program

9 and blanket residency checks of prospective and actual

10 firearms purchasers.

11 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date

12 of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the

13 Department of Justice shall submit to the Committee on

14 the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the

15 Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report

16 that contains the findings of the review required by sub17 section (a), and includes such recommendations as may

18 be appropriate.

19 SEC. 7. LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FIREARMS PURCHASER

20 INFORMATION.

21 Section 923(g)(1)(D) of title 18, United States Code,

22 is amended in the last sentence by inserting ‘‘, except that

23 information about the conduct of a named individual with

24 respect to a firearm or ammunition may not be so made

25 available or so provided unless the agency involved has cer26 tified that the agency will not disclose the information to


I5092.AAK
36 

11

•HR 5092 IH

1 any entity other than a court, Federal, State, or local law

2 enforcement agency, or prosecutor’’ before the period.

3 SEC. 8. CLARIFICATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES.

4 Section 1111(b) of the Homeland Security Act of

5 2002 (6 U.S.C. 531(b)) is amended—

6 (1) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

7 (1);

8 (2) by striking ‘‘; and’’ at the end of paragraph

9 (2) and inserting a period; and

10 (3) by striking paragraph (3).

11 SEC. 9. LIQUIDATION OF INVENTORY IN FEDERAL FIRE12 ARMS LICENSE EXPIRATION, SURRENDER, OR

13 REVOCATION CASES.

14 Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is

15 amended by adding at the end the following:

16 ‘‘(m) A person whose license issued under this chap17 ter is expired, surrendered, or revoked shall be afforded

18 60 days from the effective date of the expiration, sur19 render, or revocation to liquidate the firearms inventory

20 of the person, which time may be extended upon a showing

21 of reasonable cause.’’.

22 SEC. 10. OPPORTUNITY TO CURE VIOLATIONS AFTER AC23 QUISITION OF FIREARMS BUSINESS.

24 Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is further

25 amended by adding at the end the following:


I5092.AAL
37 

12

•HR 5092 IH

1 ‘‘(n) If the Attorney General is made aware that a

2 person licensed under this chapter has transferred to an3 other person an entire firearms business subject to license

4 under this chapter and, before the transfer, the transferor

5 was found to be operating the business in violation of this

6 chapter, the Attorney General—

7 ‘‘(1) shall notify the transferee of the violation

8 by the transferor;

9 ‘‘(2) shall not presume that the transferee is

10 committing the violation; and

11 ‘‘(3) if the Attorney General finds that the

12 transferee is committing the violation—

13 ‘‘(A) shall notify the transferee of the vio14 lation;

15 ‘‘(B) shall afford the transferee a reason16 able amount of time after receipt of the notice

17 to cure the violation; and

18 ‘‘(C) shall not impose a sanction on the

19 transferee with respect to the violation, unless

20 the transferee has not cured the violation with

21 the reasonable amount of time referred to in

22 subparagraph (B).’’.


I5092.AAM
38 

13

•HR 5092 IH

1 SEC. 11. STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF REC2 ORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.

3 Section 922(m) of title 18, United States Code, is

4 amended—

5 (1) by striking ‘‘any false entry’’ and inserting

6 ‘‘a materially false entry’’;

7 (2) by striking ‘‘appropriate entry’’ and insert8 ing ‘‘a materially significant entry’’; and

9 (3) by striking ‘‘properly maintain’’ and insert10 ing ‘‘retain custody of’’.

11 SEC. 12. EFFECTIVE DATE.

12 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall

13 take effect at the end of the 180-day period that begins

14 with the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ


I5092.AAN
39 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The chair recognizes the gentleman 

from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, the chair of the Subcommittee on 

Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, for a motion. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security reports favorably the bill, H.R. 

5092, and moves its favorable recommendation to the full House. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, H.R. 5092 will be 

considered as read and open for amendment at any point. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina to 

strike the last word. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security reports favorably the bill, H.R. 5092, the ‘‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) Modernization and Reform Act of 2006,’’ which was introduced by the 

gentleman from Virginia, Representative Scott, and me. 

The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 

conducted a series of three oversight hearings regarding the 

BATFE’s investigation and enforcement activities. These hearings 

raised concerns over the BATFE’s allocation of resources, investigation techniques, and lack of consistent law enforcement policies and 

procedures among the BATFE’s field offices and central management. 

The hearings, furthermore, revealed the need for, one, a graduated penalty system in Title 18, U.S. Code Section 923, including 

civil penalties, based on the degree of risk or harm that the dealer’s 

violation posed to others; two, establish a system of neutral administrative law judges to review the license and the decisions of 

BATFE; three, establish investigative guidelines similar to those of 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement 

Agency; and, finally, other modifications to the Federal laws to ensure that American citizens receive due process of the law. 

H.R. 5092 is a bipartisan attempt to address issues raised during 

the BATFE oversight hearings. 

The bill authorizes civil penalties, including fines and suspensions, for dealers who violate the Gun Control Act, creates independent administrative law judges to hear enforcement cases, defines serious and non-serious violations, clarifies the requisite intent for civil violations, establishes BATFE investigative guidelines, 

requires the DOJ inspector general to investigate the BATFE gun 

show enforcement program, and limits the BATFE’s authority and 

clarifies several enforcement regulations. 

On May 3, 2006, the Subcommittee favorably reported the bill, 

without amendment, and I hope my colleagues in the full Committee will support this important bill. 

I would yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, seek recognition? 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this markup on H.R. 5092, 

the ‘‘Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ModVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:58 Sep 23, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR672.XXX HR672
40 

ernization and Reform Act.’’ I am pleased to join Chairman Coble 

in presenting the substitute for markup by this Committee. 

And I want to express my appreciation for the bipartisan and 

open process under which Chairman Coble and the chief counsel, 

Michael Volkov, and my counsel, Bobby Vassar, conducted consideration and development of the bill. 

I understand from my counsel that they have met with other Judiciary Committee Members and staff, ATF and the Department of 

Justice staff, handgun safety group representatives and with representatives of offices of mayors of New York and Boston, as well 

as with the National Rifle Association and other gun rights advocates, and they have exchanged information and ideas with all on 

a bipartisan basis. 

There have been well over a dozen redrafts of the original substitute before us. And while no participant got all he or she wanted 

in the bill, all of the interests and concerns were considered and 

the bill represents a reflection of the impact of many of those considerations. 

Mr. Chairman, I joined Chairman Coble in developing the bill 

based on his representation to me that it would focus on improving 

due process and effectiveness of the ATF enforcement of Federal 

gun laws and regulations. 

Currently, there are complaints, on the one hand, that the enforcement system treats firearm licensees unfairly by focusing too 

much on minor technical violations, with the threat of revocation 

on each one. And if a violation citation is challenged, the system 

perpetuates a further appearance of unfairness by using ATF employees, responsible to their supervisors, to decide challenges ultimately subject to the discretion of the director of ATF. 

On the other hand, there are complaints that ATF is unable to 

effectively impact licensees because its only effective sanction is 

revocation and licensees know that they will not be revoked for 

anything other than the most serious violations, so they can be 

fairly loose with lesser violations. 

Most of these violations receive only warnings or conferences 

with ATF officials. And where a dealer’s license is revoked for what 

is perceived to be a relatively minor violation, even if it is the 

ATF’s only way of showing that it is willing to revoke for such violations, it generates perceptions of unfairness and breeds disrespect 

for the regulatory process. 

Moreover, with the limited resources to cover the large number 

of licensees, there are complaints that most violators only get a 

slap on the wrist or nothing at all, because ATF is unable to conduct a sufficient number of inspections. 

So bad dealers often are able to operate with relative impunity, 

endangering the public and giving the ATF and industry a bad 

name. 

H.R. 5092 seeks to address these problems with a system of intermediate sanctions, applied on a graduated basis, for violations 

the ATF designates as minor through its regulations and in addition to current sanctions, such as warnings and required conferences, the bill makes available to the ATF fines up to a $1,000 

each, with a cumulative total of $5,000 per inspection process. 

In addition to such fines, after two minor violations, suspensions 

of up to 30 days are available. 

41 

For violations designated as serious by the ATF, by ATF regulations in compliance with this act, fines up to $2,500 per violation 

may be applied, up to a cumulative amount of up to $15,000 per 

inspection process. In addition to such fines, suspensions of up to 

90 days or revocation are available. 

To address the issues of due process in the context of substantially heightened penalties for most violations, the bill revamps the 

hearing process by requiring that hearings be conducted by detached administrative law judges, with penalties stayed during appeals, unless the attorney general establishes that such a stay 

would pose an immediate and gave danger to the public. 

The bill redefines the term ‘‘willfully’’ to raise the burden of proof 

for a violation in an effort to limit the findings of guilt to knowing 

and intentional violations. 

All of this is subject to the regulatory process, as well, which 

should serve to further clarify what reflects knowing and intentional acts or omissions. 

In one area in the bill, we have agreed to revamp, in this section, 

the section allowing for the liquidation of inventory after revocation. In order to hold a business accountable to Federal requirements during this period, the business will have to be in at least 

provisional or, in other regulatory context, legal and we have 

agreed to address this as the bill moves forward. 

The bill is a total revamp of the licensing and regulatory system 

and I believe it will better ensure fairness, as well as accountability 

and, ultimately, better assure public safety. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, if I could just have 30 more seconds. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

Mr. SCOTT. Accordingly, while I am open to proposals for further 

improvement, I believe the bill is worthy of our support in its current form. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members’ 

opening statements will appear in the record at this time. 

[The opening statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to explain my concerns with the bill, H.R. 5092. My primary concern with 

the bill is that it hampers the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 

and Explosives (BATF) to put corrupt gun dealers out of business, and thus help 

reduce the carnage taking place in many of the nation’s major urban centers, by 

striking § 4 of the bill. 

H.R. 5092 was introduced by Chairman Coble and the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott 

as a bipartisan attempt to address enforcement issues raised during ATF oversight 

hearings conducted by the Subcommittee. Specifically, those hearings focused on 

ATF’s Richmond gun show enforcement program and generally on ATF’s licensing 

and revocation authority over federal Firearms Licensees. 

The bill addresses a number of issues relating to ATF’s enforcement authority, including authorization of civil penalties (e.g. fines and suspensions); creation of independent Administrative law Judges to hear enforcement cases; definition of serious 

and non-serious violations; DOJ Inspector General investigation of ATF gun show 

enforcement program; limitation on ATF authorities; clarification of several enforceVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:58 Sep 23, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR672.XXX HR672
42 

ment regulations; and, most significantly, modification of the requisite intent for violations. 

The bill provides in Sec. 4, entitled ‘‘Definition of Willfully,’’ that ‘‘willfully’’ is defined as: 

‘‘intentionally, purposely, and with the intent to act in violation of a known legal 

duty.’’ 

My concern with this provision of the bill is that it defines ‘‘willfully’’ to impose 

a much higher standard of proof upon law enforcement officials than currently. 

There does not appear to be any compelling reason for increasing the government’s 

evidentiary burden at this time. The definition of willfullness is well-settled in the 

law and means that defendant knew his conduct was unlawful; not that he knew 

of the specific statute he is accused of violating or had the specific intent to violate 

that precise provision. 

Mr. Chairman, changing the evidentiary standards governing elements of penal 

offenses should be done sparingly and with the utmost care. This is particularly true 

where, as here, we do not have the benefit of the considered views of thoughtful 

criminal law scholars, experienced prosecutors and police officers with front-line experience, or the Department of Justice. 

The redefinition of ‘‘willfully’’ contained in the bill illustrates my concern. As I 

noted, the bill defines willfully as ‘‘intentionally, purposely, and with the intent to 

act in violation of a known legal duty.’’ This definition, however, has been repeatedly rejected by the federal courts. Bryan v. U.S., 524 U.S. 184 (1998); U.S. v. 

Andrade, 135 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Allah, 130 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 1997); 

U.S. v. Collins, 957 F.2d 72 (2d. 1992) 

In the Bryan case, the defendant was convicted of willfully dealing in firearms 

without a federal license. Specifically, the defendant did not have a federal firearms 

license; he used ‘‘so-called ‘‘straw purchasers’’ in Ohio to acquired pistols he could 

not have bought himself; that he knew the straw purchasers made false statements 

when purchasing the guns; that defendant assured the straw purchasers that he 

would file off the serial numbers; and that defendant resold the guns on Brooklyn 

street corners known for drug dealing. Despite this conduct, defendant claimed that 

he could not be convicted under the federal firearms laws unless the government 

proved he knew of the federal licensing requirement. The Supreme Court rejected 

this claim, stating: 

‘‘the willfulness requirement . . . does not carve out an exception to the traditional rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse; knowledge that the conduct 

is unlawful is all that is required.’’ 524 U.S. at 193. 

Similarly, in another case, U.S. v. Collins, the Second Circuit rejected the argument that willfully requires proof that defendant had specific knowledge of the federal firearms license requirements, stating: 

[T]he element of willfulness not contained in § 922(a)(1) was meant to be read 

broadly to require only that the government prove that defendant’s conduct was 

knowing and purposeful and that the defendant intended to commit an act 

which the law forbids.’’ 957 F.2d at 76. 

According to the court, the government was not required to prove more than just 

the defendant’s general knowledge that he or she is violating the law.’’ Id. at 75. 

Other courts have reached similar conclusions and I list them in my statement. 

The point, Mr. Chairman, is that the federal firearms license statute is and has 

been an important tool for law enforcement to crack down on the illegal trafficking 

in firearms and the wanton violence this conduct exacerbates. I do not believe that 

a compelling case has been made on this record to take this tool away from law enforcement. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to vote against the bill. 

Thank you. I yield the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there any amendments? 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Coble, for purposes of offering an amendment in the nature of a 

substitute. 

Mr. COBLE. And I so offer that, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 

5092—— 

[The amendment offered by Mr. Coble and Mr. Scott follows:] 

43 

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE

TO H.R. 5092

OFFERED BY MR. COBLE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bureau of Alcohol,

3 Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) Moderniza4 tion and Reform Act of 2006’’.

5 SEC. 2. GRADUATED PENALTIES FOR CIVIL VIOLATIONS BY

6 FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 923 of title 18, United

8 States Code, is amended by striking subsections (e) and

9 (f) and inserting the following:

10 ‘‘(e)(1)(A) If the Attorney General determines that

11 a licensee under this section has willfully violated any pro12 vision of this chapter or any regulation prescribed under

13 this chapter, the Attorney General may—

14 ‘‘(i) if the violation is of a minor nature, or if

15 the violation is that the licensee has failed to have

16 secure gun storage or safety devices available at any

17 place in which firearms are sold under the license to

18 persons who are not licensees (except because of


A5092.AAB
44 

2

H.L.C.

1 theft, casualty loss, consumer sales, back orders

2 from a manufacturer, or any other similar reason

3 beyond the control of the licensee)—

4 ‘‘(I) impose on the licensee a civil money

5 penalty of not more than $1,000 for each such

6 violation, except that the total amount of pen7 alties imposed on a licensee under this sub8 clause for violations arising from a single in9 spection or examination shall not exceed

10 $5,000; or

11 ‘‘(II) suspend the license for not more than

12 30 days, and specify the circumstances under

13 which the suspension is to be terminated, if, in

14 the period for which the license is in effect,

15 there have been at least 2 prior occasions on

16 which the licensee has been determined to have

17 violated this chapter; or

18 ‘‘(ii) if the violation is of a serious

19 nature—

20 ‘‘(I) impose on the licensee a civil

21 money penalty of not more than $2,500 for

22 each such violation, except that the total

23 amount of penalties imposed on a licensee

24 under this subclause for a violations arisVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:58 Sep 23, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR672.XXX HR672

A5092.AAC
45 

3

H.L.C.

1 ing from a single inspection or examination

2 shall not exceed $15,000;

3 ‘‘(II) suspend the license for not more

4 than 90 days, and specify the cir5 cumstances under which the suspension is

6 to be terminated;

7 ‘‘(III) revoke the license; or

8 ‘‘(IV) take the actions described in

9 subclauses (I) and (II), or subclauses (I)

10 and (III).

11 ‘‘(B)(i)(I) In determining the amount of a civil money

12 penalty to impose under subparagraph (A) on a licensee,

13 the nature and severity of the violation involved, the size

14 of the firearms business operated by the licensee, and the

15 prior record of the licensee shall be considered.

16 ‘‘(II) On request of the licensee, the Attorney General

17 may consider the ability of the licensee to pay a civil

18 money penalty, and may allow the licensee to submit docu19 ments and information to establish the ability of the li20 censee to pay. The Attorney General shall not make part

21 of any public record any document or information so sub22 mitted, and shall return to the licensee any such document

23 or information.

24 ‘‘(III) The total amount of penalties imposed on a

25 licensee under subparagraph (A) with respect to violations


A5092.AAD
46 

4

H.L.C.

1 of a minor nature and of a serious nature arising from

2 a single inspection or examination shall not exceed

3 $15,000.

4 ‘‘(ii) For purposes of subparagraph (A), violation of

5 a provision of this chapter with respect to 2 or more fire6 arms during a single transaction shall be considered a sin7 gle violation of the provision.

8 ‘‘(iii) The Attorney General may defer, or suspend,

9 in whole or in part, the imposition of a civil money penalty

10 on a licensee whose license is suspended under this para11 graph.

12 ‘‘(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A):

13 ‘‘(i) A violation of this chapter shall be consid14 ered to be of a serious nature if the violation—

15 ‘‘(I) results in or could have resulted in the

16 transfer of a firearm or ammunition to a person

17 prohibited from possessing or receiving the fire18 arm or ammunition under this chapter, or

19 under State or local law;

20 ‘‘(II) obstructs or could have ob21 structed a bona fide criminal investigation or

22 prosecution, or an inspection or examination

23 under this chapter; or

24 ‘‘(III) prevents or could have prevented a

25 licensee from complying with subsection (a)(7),


A5092.AAE
47 

5

H.L.C.

1 (a)(8), (b)(1), (b)(3), (b)(4), (j), (k), (o), or (p)

2 of section 922, subsection (g)(7) of this section,

3 or subsection (b) or (h) of section 924.

4 ‘‘(ii) A violation of this chapter shall be consid5 ered to be of a minor nature if the violation is not

6 of a serious nature.

7 ‘‘(D) The Attorney General may not commence an

8 enforcement action under subparagraph (A) with respect

9 to a violation, after the 5-year period that begins with—

10 ‘‘(i) the date the violation occurred; or

11 ‘‘(ii) if the licensee intentionally obstructed dis12 covery of the violation, the date the violation is dis13 covered.

14 ‘‘(2)(A) Not less than 30 days before the effective

15 date of any penalty imposed on a licensee by reason of

16 a determination made under paragraph (1), the Attorney

17 General shall send the licensee a written notice of—

18 ‘‘(i) of the determination, and the grounds on

19 which the determination was made;

20 ‘‘(ii) of the nature of the penalty; and

21 ‘‘(iii) that the licensee may, within 30 days

22 after receipt of the notice, request a hearing to re23 view the determination.

24 ‘‘(B) A hearing to review a determination made under

25 paragraph (1) with respect to a licensee shall not be held


A5092.AAF
48 

6

H.L.C.

1 unless the licensee requests such a hearing within 30 days

2 after receiving the notice of the determination sent pursu3 ant to subparagraph (A).

4 ‘‘(C) On timely receipt from the licensee of a request

5 for such a review, the Attorney General shall stay the im6 position under paragraph (1) of any penalty involved,

7 pending resolution of the review, unless, in the case of a

8 suspension or revocation of a licensee, the Attorney Gen9 eral establishes, at a hearing before an administrative law

10 judge, by clear and convincing evidence, that—

11 ‘‘(i) the licensee or the principal owner of the

12 business subject to the license has been indicted and

13 charged with a criminal violation of this chapter;

14 and

15 ‘‘(ii) the continued operation by the licensee of

16 the business poses an immediate and grave threat to

17 public safety.

18 ‘‘(3)(A) Within 90 days after timely receipt from a

19 licensee of a request to review a determination made under

20 paragraph (1) (or at such later time as is agreed to by

21 the Attorney General and the licensee), an administrative

22 law judge shall hold a hearing, at a location convenient

23 to the licensee, to review the determination.

24 ‘‘(B) Not less than 30 days before the hearing, the

25 Attorney General shall deliver to the licensee—


A5092.AAG
49 

7

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(i) a document identifying each person whom

2 the Attorney General intends to call as a witness

3 during the hearing;

4 ‘‘(ii) a copy of each document which will be in5 troduced as evidence at the hearing; and

6 ‘‘(iii) copies of all documents on which the de7 termination is based.

8 ‘‘(C) Within 90 days after the hearing, the adminis9 trative law judge shall issue a written decision setting

10 forth findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a deci11 sion as to whether to affirm, modify, or reverse the deter12 mination.

13 ‘‘(D) On request of the licensee, the Attorney General

14 shall stay the effective date of any penalty, suspension,

15 or revocation until there has been a final, nonreviewable

16 judgment with respect to the determination involved, un17 less, in the case of a suspension or revocation of a licensee,

18 the Attorney General establishes, at a hearing before an

19 administrative law judge, by clear and convincing evi20 dence, that—

21 ‘‘(i) the licensee or the principal owner of the

22 business subject to the license has been indicted and

23 charged with a criminal violation of this chapter;

24 and


A5092.AAH
50 

8

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(ii) the continued operation by the licensee of

2 the business poses an immediate and grave threat to

3 public safety.

4 ‘‘(E) The action of an administrative law judge under

5 this subsection shall be considered final agency action for

6 all purposes, and may be reviewed only as provided in sub7 section (f).

8 ‘‘(4) This subsection shall not be interpreted to affect

9 the authority of the Attorney General under section

10 922(t)(5).

11 ‘‘(f)(1) Within 60 days after a party receives a notice

12 issued under subsection (d)(3) of a decision to deny a li13 cense, or a notice issued under subsection (e)(3)(C) of a

14 determination to impose a civil money penalty or to sus15 pend or revoke a license, the party may file a petition with

16 the United States district court for the district in which

17 the party resides or has a principal place of business for

18 a de novo review of the decision or determination.

19 ‘‘(2) In a proceeding conducted under this paragraph,

20 the court shall, on application of a party, consider any evi21 dence submitted by the parties to the proceeding whether

22 or not the evidence was considered at the hearing held

23 under subsection (d)(3) or (e)(3).

24 ‘‘(3) If the court decides that the decision or deter25 mination was not authorized, the court shall order the AtVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:58 Sep 23, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR672.XXX HR672

A5092.AAI
51 

9

H.L.C.

1 torney General to take such action as may be necessary

2 to comply with the judgment of the court.

3 ‘‘(4) If criminal proceedings are instituted against a

4 licensee alleging any violation of this chapter or of a regu5 lation prescribed under this chapter, and the licensee is

6 acquitted of the charges, or the proceedings are termi7 nated, other than upon motion of the Government before

8 trial on the charges, the Attorney General shall be abso9 lutely barred from denying a license under this chapter,

10 suspending or revoking a license granted under this chap11 ter, or imposing a civil money penalty under subsection

12 (e), if the action would be based in whole or in part on

13 the facts which form the basis of the criminal charges.

14 ‘‘(5) The Attorney General may not institute a pro15 ceeding to suspend or revoke a license granted under this

16 chapter, or to impose a civil money penalty under sub17 section (e), more than 1 year after the filing of the indict18 ment or information.’’.

19 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

20 (1) PROCEDURE APPLICABLE TO DENIAL OF

21 APPLICATION FOR LICENSE.—Section 923(d) of such

22 title is amended by adding at the end the following:

23 ‘‘(3) If the Attorney General denies an application

24 for a license, an administrative law judge of the Depart25 ment of Justice shall, on request by the aggrieved party,


A5092.AAJ
52 

10

H.L.C.

1 promptly hold a hearing to review the denial, at a location

2 convenient to the aggrieved party. If, after the hearing,

3 the administrative law judge decides not to reverse the de4 nial, the administrative law judge shall give notice of the

5 final denial decision to the aggrieved party.’’.

6 (2) ELIMINATION OF REDUNDANT PENALTY.—

7 Section 924 of such title is amended by striking sub8 section (p).

9 SEC. 3. CONSIDERATION OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSE

10 APPLICATIONS.

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 923(d) of title 18, United

12 States Code, as amended by section 2(b) of this Act, is

13 amended by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as para14 graphs (3) and (4) and inserting after paragraph (1) the

15 following:

16 ‘‘(2) The Attorney General shall make a preliminary

17 determination as to whether to approve or deny an appli18 cation submitted under subsection (a) or (b). If the pre19 liminary determination is to deny the application, the At20 torney General shall notify the applicant in writing of the

21 preliminary determination and the reasons for the prelimi22 nary determination, and shall afford the applicant an op23 portunity to supplement the application with additional in24 formation and to request a hearing on the application. If

25 the applicant, in a timely manner, requests such a hearing,


A5092.AAK
53 

11

H.L.C.

1 the Attorney General shall hold the hearing at a location

2 convenient to the applicant, and shall notify the applicant

3 in writing of the time and place of the hearing.’’.

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 923(f)(1)

5 of such title, as amended by section 2(a) of this Act, is

6 amended by striking ‘‘(d)(3)’’ each place it appears and

7 inserting ‘‘(d)(4)’’.

8 SEC. 4. DEFINITION OF WILLFULLY.

9 Section 923(e) of title 18, United States Code, as

10 amended by sections 2(a) of this Act, is amended by add11 ing at the end the following:

12 ‘‘(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘will13 fully’ means, with respect to conduct of a person, that the

14 person knew of a legal duty, and engaged in the conduct

15 knowingly and in intentional disregard of the duty.’’.

16 SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF FORMAL INSPECTION, EXAM17 INATION, AND INVESTIGATIVE GUIDELINES.

18 The Attorney General shall establish guidelines for

19 how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Ex20 plosives is to conduct inspections, examinations, or inves21 tigations of possible violations of chapters 40 and 44 of

22 title 18, United States Code.


A5092.AAL
54 

12

H.L.C.

1 SEC. 6. REVIEW BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE DE2 PARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF THE GUN SHOW

3 ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM; REPORT.

4 (a) REVIEW.—The Inspector General of the Depart5 ment of Justice shall conduct a review of the operations

6 of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explo7 sives, for the purpose of assessing the manner in which

8 the Bureau conducts the gun show enforcement program

9 and blanket residency checks of prospective and actual

10 firearms purchasers.

11 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date

12 of the enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the

13 Department of Justice shall submit to the Committee on

14 the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the

15 Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report

16 that contains the findings of the review required by sub17 section (a), and includes such recommendations as may

18 be appropriate.

19 SEC. 7. LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FIREARMS PURCHASER

20 INFORMATION.

21 Section 923(g)(1)(D) of title 18, United States Code,

22 is amended in the last sentence by inserting ‘‘, except that

23 information identifying a person who has purchased or re24 ceived firearms or ammunition and who is not prohibited

25 from doing so may not be so made available or so provided

26 unless the agency involved has certified that the agency


A5092.AAM
55 

13

H.L.C.

1 will not disclose the information to any entity other than

2 a court, federal, State or local law enforcement agency,

3 or prosecutor’’ before the period.

4 SEC. 8. LIQUIDATION OF INVENTORY IN FEDERAL FIRE5 ARMS LICENSE EXPIRATION, SURRENDER, OR

6 REVOCATION CASES.

7 Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is

8 amended by adding at the end the following:

9 ‘‘(m) A person whose license issued under this chap10 ter is expired, surrendered, or revoked shall be afforded

11 60 days from the effective date of the expiration, sur12 render, or revocation to liquidate the firearms inventory

13 of the person, which time may be extended upon a showing

14 of reasonable cause. During such 60-day period (including

15 any extension of the period), the license involved shall con16 tinue to be considered valid.’’.

17 SEC. 9. OPPORTUNITY TO CURE VIOLATIONS AFTER ACQUI18 SITION OF FIREARMS BUSINESS.

19 Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is further

20 amended by adding at the end the following:

21 ‘‘(n) If the Attorney General is made aware that a

22 business licensed under this chapter has transferred to a

23 surviving spouse or child of the licensee, to an executor,

24 administrator, or other legal representative of a deceased

25 licensee; or to a receiver or trustee in bankruptcy, or an


A5092.AAN
56 

14

H.L.C.

1 assignee for benefit of creditors, and, before the transfer,

2 or on the first inspection or examination by the Attorney

3 General of the records of the licensee after the transfer,

4 the licensee is found to be operating the business in viola5 tion of this chapter, the Attorney General—

6 ‘‘(1) shall notify the transferee of the violation

7 by the transferor; and

8 ‘‘(2) shall not presume that the transferee is

9 committing the violation.’’.

10 SEC. 10. STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF REC11 ORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.

12 Section 922(m) of title 18, United States Code, is

13 amended—

14 (1) by striking ‘‘any false entry’’ and inserting

15 ‘‘a materially false entry’’;

16 (2) by striking ‘‘appropriate entry’’ and insert17 ing ‘‘a materially significant entry’’; and

18 (3) by striking ‘‘properly maintain’’ and insert19 ing ‘‘retain custody of’’.

20 SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

21 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall

22 take effect at the end of the 180-day period that begins

23 with the date of the enactment of this Act.


A5092.AAO
57 

Mr. COBLE. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that the 

amendment be considered as read. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, so ordered. 

And the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, I failed to do that. Mr. Scott, I failed to express 

my appreciation to you earlier, and Mr. Vassar, as well, and to Mr. 

Volkov, on our side. This was a bipartisan effort that was thoroughly and deliberately examined. As I said, there were three hearings conducted. 

Very briefly, let me tell you what appears in the amendment in 

the nature of a substitute. 

It modifies section 2 regarding graduated penalties by expanding 

the list of possible violations that are serious, changes existing law 

to allow governments to force licensees to cease operations pending 

review of the administrative law judge (ALJ) decision to revoke a 

license or suspend operations, criminal indictment and where continued operation poses grave risk to community safety. 

It authorizes the ALJ to consider the size of the business when 

setting a civil penalty, clarifies that gun storage or safety device requirements are minor violations, as under existing law. 

Section 4 revises the definition of ‘‘willful’’ to ensure that enforcement actions are directed against knowing and intentional violations by a licensee and do not include good faith mistakes or ministerial or administrative mistakes. 

Section 5 expands investigative guidelines to address non-firearms inspections and examinations. 

Section 8 clarifies the 60-day limit within which a licensee may 

continue to sell firearms. 

Section E deletes former section 8, which would have restricted 

the ATF authorities to prevent ATF from enforcement of other 

criminal and civil laws beyond the Tobacco, Alcohol, Firearms and 

Explosives venue. 

And that, pretty clearly, I think, Mr. Chairman, explains the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Before continuing, the chair will interrupt the proceedings to announce the presence in the room of a 

number of members of the parliament of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. And I will introduce them one by one and apologize in 

advance if I am mispronouncing anybody’s name. 

Dr. Mohammad Salih Saljoqi, Mr. Noorolhaq Olomi, Mr. Zalmay 

Mujadidi, Dr. Kabir Ranjbar, Mr. Bidar Zazai, Mr. Mohammad 

Shaker Kargar, Mr. Ahmad Ali Jebraili, and Mr. Din Mohammad 

Azimi. 

This includes the second secretary of the parliament and the 

chairs of the armed services, internal security, government relations, and budget committee, the deputy chair of the international 

relations committee, a member of the government affairs committee, and the secretary of the religious affairs and education 

committee. 

[Applause.] 

There are three staff Members who are accompanying them, a 

program escort from the House Democracy Assistance Commission, 

which is an arm of the U.S. House of Representatives, and three 

interpreters. 

58 

We welcome you here, and we hope that you find that the way 

American democracy works is open and transparent. We debate 

vigorously. And we wish you well as you are establishing your democracy in your country. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan? 

Mr. CONYERS. I rise in opposition of the substitute amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. I am opposed to the amendment for the same reasons that I am opposed to the text of the underlying bill, namely, 

because the amendment, as introduced, would largely eliminate 

BATFE’s current revocation powers, replace them with minimal 

fines and temporary license suspensions. 

And, additionally, this substitute fails to improve upon the bill’s 

current definition of serious versus minor offenses. And, finally, the 

amendment fails to address the problem that would require the bureau to automatically stay or postpone the imposition of a fine or 

a suspension or revocation, pending completion of an administrative hearing, no matter how egregious the violation. 

Now, what we have before us is one of the most amazing pieces 

of work that this Committee has brought forward yet. We all but 

eliminate the bureau’s current authority to revoke the Federal firearms licenses of corrupt dealers and would make it virtually impossible for the bureau to shut down rogue gun dealers who repeatedly 

violate the law. 

It creates two serious new classifications of Federal gun laws, the 

serious ones and the non-serious ones. And the definitions are so 

vague that it would make enforcement, it seems to me, extremely 

rare and would require the bureau to automatically stay or postpone the imposition of a fine, suspension or revocation, pending 

completion of an administrative hearing, no matter how serious the 

violation. 

The problem that this raises, for me, is that dangerous firearms 

in the hands of violent criminals and, may I also add, terrorists 

continue to be one of the most pressing concerns facing our nation. 

In the last year that it was recorded, 3,012 children and teens 

were killed by gunfire in the United States, which comes to about 

a child every 3 hours, eight children every day, 50 more every 

week. 

In addition, American children are often at greater risk for firearm related injuries and fatalities. Firearms were reportedly used 

to kill 19 children in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 

153 in Canada, but 5,285 in the United States. 

And so this substitute only compounds the problem that is found 

in the original measure. I hope that we can see some kind of a concern here about the incredible amount of deaths that are taking 

place because of inadequate enforcement and I think we are moving in the wrong direction. 

I ask unanimous consent to have The Washington Post Sunday, 

July 23rd, article by Amit Paley included in my comments. 

And I return the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the extraneous 

material will be included. 

59 

[The article follows:] 


5092A1.eps
60 


5092A2.eps
61 


5092A3.eps
62 


5092A4.eps
63 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there any second-degree amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by 

the gentleman from North Carolina? 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from New York seek recognition? 

Mr. WEINER. First, I would like to strike the last word on the 

amendment being offered by Mr. Coble. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, it is puzzling to me what the problem is that the Coble substitute or the base bill seeks to resolve. 

It is certainly not that there have been an enormous number of gun 

dealers that have had their license revoked. 

According to the ATF, the last numbers we have in 2003, they 

only sought to revoke 54 licenses in the entire country, which represented about 2 percent of those that they inspected. 

The ATF says that even the president system that is being reformed, theoretically, because there is widespread and very subjective enforcement going on by the ATF, ATF says that the present 

system already makes it very, very difficult for them to actually repeal anyone’s license. 

They say that the inspector general said that if they proceeded 

on the present pace to do all of their revocations they would like 

to do, it would take them 19 years to do them. 

There are gun shops that are presently under the process to be 

suspended that have been on appeal for years. You know, there is 

one in San Laredo, California, where an ATF audit found that 

7,477 firearms had gone missing. Now, when I say ‘‘gone missing,’’ 

I mean that the paperwork that is required under the law that we 

could say you don’t want to keep anymore, maybe that is the way 

we should go, had been lost. 

That is under a process for suspension that has been going on 

since 2004 and still the gun dealer continues to operate. 

Now, I should point out that under the Coble substitute and the 

base bill, that would be considered, in the words of the bill, a minor 

offense, 7,400 missing or off-the-book transactions would be redefined in this legislation as a minor offense. 

Which brings me to the second rationale for the bill, which is 

that we have one bucket that we put all infractions in and we 

should give the ATF more flexibility to actually be able to decide 

what is the wheat and what is the chaff. And I think that that is 

fair, but the way that the Coble bill does it is by saying that everything is essentially a minor infraction. 

Well, I would ask you if failure to do a background check should 

be considered minor. Is failure to do 50 background checks minor, 

failure to do a 100, failure to do any? 

They all would be, under the Coble substitute, considered a 

minor infraction. In fact, it is very interesting, in the Coble substitute, you might be saying, ‘‘Well, what does he consider serious 

under the bill?’’ 

If a dealer colludes with a gun trafficker. But if he says, ‘‘I am 

not going to collude with anyone. I am just not going to do any paperwork. I am not going to do any paperwork. Let anyone who 

comes in here who wants—I am not going to do a single one. I am 

64 

not going to intentionally sell or collude with someone, but I am 

not going to do any paperwork.’’ 

Thousands and thousands and thousands of lost guns, which, by 

the way, is how we track down terrorists, how we track down 

criminals. Those would be considered minor infractions. 

So it is not that the ATF is doing a lot of these proceedings. They 

are doing very few. I gave you the statistics. What this is really 

about is gutting the way the ATF, as Mr. Conyers said, the ATF 

does its job. 

Now, if you really wanted to clarify or modernize or reform, 

would you put in language that repeals the penalties enacted in 

2005 for failure to provide gun safety locks with your handgun? No. 

You are not trying to reform the ATF. You are trying to gut handgun laws. 

And you might disagree that we should provide safety locks, that 

is fine, we can have that debate again, but let’s call it what it is. 

If you really are trying to reform the process, then you would give 

the ATF some guidelines about penalties that you think are more 

fair rather than saying wholesale numbers of violations would be 

wiped off the books and be something that the ATF can’t pursue. 

No one would ever accuse the ATF and the Bush administration 

of being a ferocious tiger of enforcement. 

You can look at some of the dealers that have been allowed to 

proceed. You can look at the positions they have taken on issues 

we are going to take up later, where they even stop cities and 

States from trying to protect their citizens. 

But, certainly, the ATF activities so far have not demonstrated 

that they need this type of reform. If anything, they need to be bolstered. But if we are going to have this debate, let’s have it in the 

context of a little more honesty here. 

This is not about reforming the ATF. This is about gutting the 

gun laws. 

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The bell has now rung, and, without 

objection, the Committee will recess until 15 minutes after the conclusion of the vote on the rule on the horse slaughter bill. 

Members will please return promptly. We will be going from the 

time we come back until about 1:30 or the completion of at least 

this bill and the next bill. So we will be here until we get this bill 

and the next bill out, whether it is 1:30 or later. 

The Committee stands recessed. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order. 

When the Committee recessed for the vote, pending was an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 

from North Carolina, Mr. Coble. 

Are there any second-degree amendments to the Coble substitute 

amendment? 

For what purpose does the gentleman from Tennessee seek recognition? 

Mr. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. JENKINS. And I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding. 

65 

Mr. Chairman, I won’t take 5 minutes, but I just want to respond 

to some of the problems that have been voiced. 

As you all know, reasonable men and women can differ on various issues, as we do often times in this Committee, and there is 

nothing wrong with that. In fact, it is healthy. 

But, Mr. Weiner, I hope I understood you correctly. If I didn’t, 

I will apologize. But I think you indicated that a dealer who could 

not account for a gun would result in a minor violation. This is incorrect. That would be a serious violation. 

Furthermore, you indicated, as I best recall, that if a dealer did 

not conduct a background check, that, too, would be classified as 

a minor violation. In truth, it would be a serious violation. 

And most importantly, ATF will define, in the regulation, serious 

vs. non-serious violations. 

And, finally, regarding the gun safety locks and storage, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, and I agreed at the 

last markup to fix this issue and retain existing penalties. 

So, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I think a lot that has been 

said today is subject to interpretation. It is my belief that the ATF 

has not been emasculated in any way by this bill and to corroborate that, no one from the ATF has complained to me about the 

bill. So apparently they don’t feel that they have been emasculated 

as a result thereof. 

And as an aside, Mr. Chairman, this, in and of itself, does not 

make a bill good, but now we have a 137 cosponsors, Democrats 

and Republicans. So that indicates feel for the Congress at-large. 

And I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding to me. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. JENKINS. Yes. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there any amendments in the 

second degree to the amendment in the nature of a substitute by 

the gentleman from North Carolina? 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner, seek recognition? 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I would make a point of order. 

Is there a quorum present to consider amendments at this point? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. Present. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, present. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Present. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, present. 

Mr. Gallegly? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Goodlatte? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Chabot? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Lundgren? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Jenkins? 

66 

Mr. JENKINS. Present. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, present. 

Mr. Cannon? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Bachus? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. Present. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, present. 

Mr. Hostettler? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Green? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. Present. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, present. 

Mr. Issa? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Flake? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Pence? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Forbes? 

[No response.] 

Mr. King? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. Present. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, present. 

Mr. Franks? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Gohmert? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Present. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, present. 

Mr. Berman? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Boucher? 

Mr. BOUCHER. Present. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher, present. 

Mr. Nadler? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Present. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, present. 

Mr. Watt? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Jackson Lee? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Waters? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Meehan? 

67 

[No response.] 

Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Wexler? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Weiner? 

Mr. WEINER. Present. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, present. 

Mr. Schiff? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Van Hollen? 

[No response.] 

Mrs. Wasserman Schultz? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Present. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Wasserman Schultz, present. 

Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Present. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, present. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there Members in the chamber 

who wish to record their presence? 

The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Present. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, present. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. Present. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, present. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members in the chamber 

who wish to record their presence? 

The clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 14 Members present. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A reporting quorum is present—excuse me, a working quorum is present. 

For what purpose does the gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Weiner, seek recognition? 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification. So that 

means that a sufficient number aren’t here to vote on an amendment, but just to discuss the amendments? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No, a sufficient number are here to 

discuss and vote on amendments, but not to report the bill. 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Mr. WEINER. Weiner 313. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 5092, offered by Mr. Weiner of New York. Strike 

section 8’’—— 

[The amendment offered by Mr. Weiner follows:] 

68 

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 5092

OFFERED BY MR. WEINER OF NEW YORK

Strike section 8.

In section 9, strike ‘‘further’’.

Redesignate the subsection proposed to be added by

section 9, as subsection (m).


5092B.AAB
69 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, in my remarks about the Coble substitute, I listed some of the things that lay bare the notion that this 

is not an effort to reform the ATF, this is an effort to gut their authority. 

There are a few examples that make that more clear than section 

8. When the ATF goes in and takes action against a dealer and 

says, ‘‘We are going to take away your license to operate,’’ it says 

that you have got to say that they have a period of time where they 

can dispense of their firearms in their stock. 

But, obviously, you still have to do the necessary disclosures and 

the necessary recordkeeping. 

What this section 8 does, if you read it carefully, is it says that 

for 60 days after a license is revoked, 60 days after you have fallen 

into that 1 percent category, you have gone through these years of 

appeals and you have been whittled down to—you are one of the 

very worst actors, by almost any definition, you are one of the very 

worst actors, you have lost—your license has been taken away, 

what section 8 of the Coble substitute says is you can continue selling guns for 60 days thereafter, even if there is a risk to the public 

that the ATF has determined by continuing to do that. 

And this amendment would simply strike that. It would allow 

the ATF to do what the ATF should be doing, which is deciding 

who should be able to sell guns and who should not. And particularly in this case, to have a 60-day fire sale of weapons essentially 

being dumped by someone who we have already concluded, by definition of the gentleman from North Carolina, the gentleman from 

here in New York, all of us agree that once you have gone through 

this process, however we are going to define it, once you have gone 

through this process and had your license revoked, it means you 

are a bad guy. 

I believe you are a bad guy presently, you are a bad player presently. Under the Coble bill, it would be changed. So you still have 

a process that you go through that would be much more lenient, 

much, much more lenient. 

But even by his definition, you are the worst of the worst player. 

You are someone that sells guns to terrorists. You are someone 

that has repeatedly willfully showed, under any definition, that you 

are not going to comply. 

What this amendment does is allow the ATF to end that fire 

sale, to not include this 60-day period where guns can be dumped 

onto the marketplace. 

Think about what would happen. You have already lost whatever 

enforcement mechanism you have against that dealer. What incentive is there on him then not to just, to anyone who pulls up in 

a U-Haul, to sell off his wares, because then what are they going 

to do to me? 

You have already taken away my license. You have already 

taken away my shop. I am already such a scurrilous player that 

I have lost my right to sell. 

At the very least, once that Damocles sword falls, we should 

make sure that we don’t have the 60-day period. 

My amendment would strike section 8, and I urge a ‘‘yes’’ vote. 

70 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. I rise in opposition to the Weiner amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. COBLE. During that 60-day period to which the gentleman 

from New York referred, the licensee must comply with appropriate 

rules and regulations during that time. 

So indictments can be forthcoming. Further violations can be 

forthcoming, if that were the case. 

So I see no need for the amendment and oppose it. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. COBLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Will the gentleman agree that we could make this a 

little clearer? Because it says, on line 15, ‘‘The license involved 

shall continue to be considered valid,’’ to make it clear that you 

have to be in compliance with rules and regulations? 

And I think there is a provision elsewhere in the law that allows 

the attorney general to eliminate the stay for safety reasons. 

Would the gentleman agree that we could look at this, in case 

the amendment is defeated? 

Mr. COBLE. I would have no problem with that, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. WEINER. Would the gentleman further yield? 

Mr. COBLE. I will. 

Mr. WEINER. I would just ask, Mr. Coble, we are talking about 

gun shops that have already run so far afoul to the law that they 

have had their license repealed. They have gone through the appeals. 

Under your bill, it is now a much more lenient process. They 

have still been targeted. They have still lost their license. This is 

a player who is already shown utter disregard for the rules of the 

road. 

Why do you think they are suddenly, in their last 60 days, when 

they have no chance of being a gun dealer ever again, why would 

they suddenly comply? I am curious. What would motivate them to 

suddenly see the light and say, ‘‘Okay, with this last 60 days of 

stock, I am going to start following the letter of the law,’’ because 

it is written on line 15 of some obscure bill that they don’t care 

about or else they wouldn’t be a criminal. 

Mr. COBLE. If I shared the concern that my friend from New 

York shares, I would probably agree with you. But they are still 

in the target. The ATF is not sleeping during this 60-day period. 

And, furthermore, it affords the licensee a chance to at least salvage some money from his inventory before—— 

Mr. WEINER. But, Mr. Chairman, why is that an objective we 

want for such a bad player? Why are we trying to protect his interests here? 

He has already been shown to be such a heinous player, he is 

in the 1 percent that lost the license. Why are we showing concern 

for salvaging anything? 

Mr. COBLE. Well, we are, obviously, in disagreement on this one 

and I stand by what I said earlier. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the Weiner 

amendment. 

Those in favor will say ‘‘aye.’’ 

71 

Those opposed, ‘‘no.’’ 

The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment 

is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request a recorded 

vote. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A recorded vote is requested. 

Those in favor of the Weiner amendment in the second degree to 

the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, will, as your names are 

called, answer ‘‘aye,’’ those opposed, ‘‘no.’’ 

And the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, no. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, no. 

Mr. Gallegly? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Goodlatte? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. 

Mr. Lundgren? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, no. 

Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. 

Mr. Bachus? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, no. 

Mr. Hostettler? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, no. 

Mr. Green? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, no. 

Mr. Issa? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Flake? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Pence? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Forbes? 

72 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, no. 

Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, no. 

Mr. Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, no. 

Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, no. 

Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gohmert, no. 

Mr. Conyers? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Berman? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Boucher? 

Mr. BOUCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher, no. 

Mr. Nadler? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, no. 

Mr. Watt? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Jackson Lee? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Waters? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Wexler? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Weiner? 

Mr. WEINER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, aye. 

Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. 

Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Van Hollen? 

[No response.] 

Mrs. Wasserman Schultz? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Wasserman Schultz, aye. 

Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No. 

73 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there Members in the chamber 

who wish to cast or change their vote? 

The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus? 

Mr. BACHUS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Lungren? 

Mr. LUNGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there further Members who 

wish to cast or change their vote? 

If not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are four ‘‘ayes’’ and 18 ‘‘nays.’’ 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments in the second degree to the Coble 

amendment in the nature of a substitute? 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from New York seek recognition? 

Mr. WEINER. I have an amendment at the desk, Weiner 314. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 5092, offered by Mr. Weiner of New York. Page 

9, strike lines 3 through 13. Page 9, line 12, strike ‘5’ and insert 

‘4’.’’ 

[The amendment offered by Mr. Weiner follows:] 

74 

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 5092

OFFERED BY MR. WEINER OF NEW YORK

Page 9, strike lines 3 through 13.

Page 9, line 14, strike ‘‘(5)’’ and insert ‘‘(4)’’.


5092C.AAB
75 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The hits keep coming. This is something else that I didn’t have 

an opportunity to address in the spare 5 minutes that I had to address the Coble substitute. 

The ATF proceedings against gun dealers are, by and large, administrative proceedings. There are times when they rise to a level 

of criminal offenses and there are also proceedings that way. 

Among the many things tucked into this reform legislation is language that says that if you have a gun dealer that is going through 

an administrative proceeding that we have already learned can be 

quite long and lengthy and prosecutors, also, at the same time, decide that this charge rises to the level of criminality, which, as you 

know, is a much higher standard, if these proceedings are going 

along at the same time and the prosecution fails to make the burden of proof and fails to convict the person on the criminal charge, 

the language in this bill, in section 3, I believe it is, section 3, says 

that when that acquittal comes down, it stops in its track any ATF 

proceedings on any related matter. 

So to tell you what that means, let’s assume for a moment that 

the ATF is doing an investigation of a gun dealer for selling undocumented or willfully selling, under the new standard, if this 

were to become the law, the new standard, a prosecution is also 

going forward on the criminal side, not the administrative side. 

What the effect of this language would be in this section would 

be to really render the administrative side either completely moot, 

because the standard there is now going to be irrelevant, because 

you are going to have the higher criminal standard at all times. 

It is a way of sneaking a new higher standard in to, again, burden the ATF, making administrative changes. 

The other thing that it is going to do is the ATF is going to have 

to have conversations with prosecutors and say, ‘‘Yes, this is pretty 

serious. Yes, we think this rises to criminality,’’ which is nothing 

that Mr. Coble or any of the sponsors of this legislation, I assume, 

want to eliminate with this law. 

They don’t want to not do criminal prosecutions. But the effect 

of doing criminal prosecutions under this language would be to say 

if you do a criminal prosecution and you fall shy of the standard 

necessary there, but you far exceed the standard for administrative 

sanctions, still the administrative proceedings die. 

Now, the question has to be why do this. What is the problem 

that the sponsors seek to stop? Is it that they are concerned about 

someone who is violating the law administratively, but can’t be 

held to a criminal standard, that that proceeding should be 

squashed? The answer is, yes, that is what they want. 

Secondarily, they want there to be fewer criminal prosecutions. 

They don’t want any criminal prosecutor to say, ‘‘Boy, oh, boy, not 

only do I have a burden of persuading the jury of the high criminal 

standard, but if I fail, I am also killing this administrative proceeding. 

There is no other place in the United States Code that we do 

this. We don’t say, ‘‘If you are not guilty’’—now, later on in the 

afternoon, you are going to see this go one step further. 

76 

You are going to say not only that, you can’t even bring a civil 

action. We are going to go from the sublime to the ridiculous a little later in the afternoon. 

But in this section, this, once again, lays bare the idea that this 

is an attempt to reform the ATF. This is a way to stop the ATF 

from doing even the small number of enforcement actions that they 

do. 

And I refer the Committee back to the statistics I quoted earlier. 

The number of license revocations that were done in ATF in 2003 

was 54 out of 1,800 inspections and the ATF said that if they just 

did the worst 1 percent, it would take them 19 years to revoke 

them. 

So this isn’t a matter that there are thousands and thousands of 

abuse put upon dealers out there. In fact, there are thousands and 

thousands of dealers who are following the rules of the road every 

single day. And if you don’t, the ATF comes and does an enforcement action. 

Under this section that we seek to strike here today, if you are 

so bad that you are being challenged both on the criminal side and 

in the administrative side and the criminal side falls, this quashes 

an investigation that is going on by the ATF on the administrative 

side. 

It is a way to either chill criminal or eliminate administrative. 

Either way, this is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and I ask for a ‘‘yes’’ 

vote. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the amendment 

offered by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner. 

Those in favor will say ‘‘aye.’’ 

Opposed, ‘‘no.’’ 

The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment 

is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I would like a roll-call vote. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A rollcall will be ordered. 

The question is on the Weiner amendment in the second degree 

to an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble. 

Those in favor of the Weiner amendment to the Coble amendment will, as your names are called, answer ‘‘aye,’’ those opposed, 

‘‘no.’’ 

And the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, no. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, no. 

Mr. Gallegly? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Goodlatte? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

77 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. 

Mr. Lungren? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, no. 

Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. 

Mr. Bachus? 

Mr. BACHUS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus, no. 

Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, no. 

Mr. Hostettler? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Green? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, no. 

Mr. Issa? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Flake? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Pence? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, no. 

Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, no. 

Mr. Feeney? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, no. 

Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gohmert, no. 

Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, aye. 

Mr. Berman? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Boucher? 

Mr. BOUCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher, no. 

Mr. Nadler? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, aye. 

78 

Mr. Watt? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Jackson Lee? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, aye. 

Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Wexler? 

Mr. WEXLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler, aye. 

Mr. Weiner? 

Mr. WEINER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, aye. 

Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. 

Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Van Hollen? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. 

Mrs. Wasserman Schultz? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Wasserman Schultz, aye. 

Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there Members who wish to cast 

or change their vote? 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren? 

Mr. LUNGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 

Mr. Meehan? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there further Members who 

wish to cast or change their vote? 

If not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are nine ‘‘ayes’’ and 16 ‘‘nays.’’ 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment to the substitute amendment is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

If there are no further amendments, the question is on—— 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman? 

79 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Weiner. 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 

Weiner 317. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 5092, offered by Mr. Weiner of New York. Page 

2, beginning on line 5, strike ‘$1,000’ and all that follows through 

‘$5,000.’ On line 10 and insert—— 

[The amendment offered by Mr. Weiner follows:] 


5092CZ.eps
80 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read. 

The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, we have had some discussion here 

about the disagreement about what the Coble substitute does visa-vis the distinction between serious and minor violations. 

And I think it is an important distinction that we need to clarify, 

because I think that Mr. Coble left the Committee with the wrong 

impression. 

As I said in my remarks, that what we have done here is allowed 

off-the-book transactions. And for those of you who are unfamiliar 

with the process, right now, when the gun manufacturer transfers 

the gun to the dealer, he inscribes the registration and has to keep 

track of the first person that purchases that gun. 

That is often used as a way we track guns from crime scenes, 

from terrorist scenes, to at least know where the gun traveled 

from. There are bookkeeping requirements. 

Now, I happen to think the bookkeeping requirements are not 

sufficient. Many Members on the other side, many of the people 

who support the gun lobby think there probably should be none. 

But there are some that we agree upon that should be kept. 

In this legislation, the Coble amendment says, on page 4, line 13, 

‘‘A violation shall be considered serious in nature if the violation,’’ 

and then lays out some things, okay. And if it is not in those sections, they are not considered major violations. 

Therefore, they are considered minor violations, which is where 

I extrapolated my conclusion, and Mr. Coble can point to the section that disputes this, that if someone has a bookkeeping violation, 10 bookkeeping violations, 50 bookkeeping violations, a 1,000 

of them, you will be in a minor situation and the ATF will be restricted from having the greatest sanctions available, because they 

are going to say, essentially, a dozen or two dozen or five dozen 

minor violations does not, in the Coble substitute, a major violation 

make. 

Now, Mr. Coble said I misunderstood or I misspoke, but unless 

he can point to me a section where it says—now, you could say that 

the attorney general could commend an action or the ATF could 

theoretically come back and, I guess, do some rulemaking. 

I would be surprised if they would in the light of congressional 

action, defining what major and minor would be. But what this 

amendment does, at the very least, is it takes off the cap on fines. 

What we do is we take off the cap on fines, putting it for minor 

violations to make it the same as what it would be for major violations. 

So at the very least, what the ATF would be able to do, if my 

amendment were adopted, is it doesn’t change the minor-major 

thing, but it does say that the fines would be higher. So if someone 

thinks they can get away, which they clearly can, it is a loophole 

the size of a truck, if they can get away with just having a whole 

bunch of minor violations, at the very least, the sanctions for them 

can rise if the ATF sees that that is appropriate. 

And I ask for a ‘‘yes’’ vote. 

Ms. WATERS. Will the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. WEINER. I certainly will. 

81 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Weiner, as you describe, what is major and 

what is minor, is there any consideration given to whether or not 

this is a handgun or an assault weapon? Could this be major weapons that could be involved with 1,000 minor violations? 

I can’t tell from looking at this. 

Mr. WEINER. Well, frankly, the way the Coble amendment, the 

substitute reads, is that it is things like collusion. If you collude 

with a gun dealer, with someone who is trafficking in guns, that 

you can’t do. 

But if you lost his paperwork for his order of a 1,000 guns, that 

is not so bad. That falls into minor. And to make matters worse, 

the fines that you are eligible for under this bill, under the Coble 

amendment, would be limited at $1,000. 

Ms. WATERS. But this could be to any kind of weapons that you 

could sell, if you lost the paperwork. This could be for handguns 

or assault weapons. 

Mr. WEINER. Any weapon, this covers any weapon under the enforcement domain of the ATF. 

Ms. WATERS. So it could be assault weapons. 

Mr. WEINER. And, frankly, and we are going to talk about this 

later, you know, this doesn’t make—if you have someone come up 

to you and say—and if you have reason to know that he is a Member of Al Qaida, for example, I believe that is right, if you have reason to know. 

But if you are not willfully, under the new definition, if you just 

do it over and over and over again, just because you just lose bookkeeping, you lose records over and over again, you are considered 

to have committed a series of minor violations which you could not 

lose your license for. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, since you mentioned willful, if you don’t mind, 

since you are taking a very close look at this, the standards that 

are changed by this legislation from should have known to willful, 

under should have known, that would have taken in if you were 

under an orange or red alert or something is going on, particularly 

as it relates to this war on terrorism. 

And if we change that standard and weaken that standard, you 

could have had an orange or a red alert or some description or a 

profile or what have you, but unless it is deemed to be willful, then 

we have weakened the standard substantially and this could be for 

an assault weapon. 

Mr. WEINER. I would say to the gentlelady from California, I am 

going to be offering a substitute later that changes it to ‘‘knowingly,’’ which is pretty bad, too. 

But if you know the fact, but you—I mean, you here are setting 

up what essentially turns out to be the highest possible standard 

for the worst type of activity. 

Ms. WATERS. And that includes for assault weapons that terrorists may use, is that right? 

Mr. WEINER. The gentlelady is correct. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, what a war on terrorism we have. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The question is on the Weiner amendment to the Coble amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

Those in favor will say ‘‘aye.’’ 

Opposed, ‘‘no.’’ 

82 

The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment 

is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

Mr. WEINER. While I gather myself, could I request a roll-call 

vote on that? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Of course. 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The chair will put the question the 

same way he has done with the last two amendments. Those in 

favor will say ‘‘aye,’’ those opposed, ‘‘no.’’ 

And the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, no. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, no. 

Mr. Gallegly? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Goodlatte? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. 

Mr. Lungren? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, no. 

Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. 

Mr. Bachus? 

Mr. BACHUS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus, no. 

Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, no. 

Mr. Hostettler? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Green? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, no. 

Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, no. 

Mr. Flake? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Pence? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Forbes? 

83 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, no. 

Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, no. 

Mr. Feeney? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, no. 

Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gohmert, no. 

Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, aye. 

Mr. Berman? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Boucher? 

Mr. BOUCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher, no. 

Mr. Nadler? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, no. 

Mr. Watt? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Pass. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, pass. 

Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, aye. 

Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Wexler? 

Mr. WEXLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler, aye. 

Mr. Weiner? 

Mr. WEINER. Pass. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, pass. 

Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Pass. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, pass. 

Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Van Hollen? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. 

Mrs. Wasserman Schultz? 

84 

[No response.] 

Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there further Members in the 

chamber who wish to cast or change their vote? 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren? 

Mr. LUNGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Do I see the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake, hiding in the door? The gentleman from Arizona? 

Mr. FLAKE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs. 

Wasserman Schultz? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Wasserman Schultz, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And, finally, the gentleman from 

New York, Mr. Weiner? 

Mr. WEINER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, aye. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. How am I recorded, please? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. 

Hostettler? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. How is the gentlewoman from Texas 

recorded? 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, she is recorded as present. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are eight ‘‘ayes’’ and 20 ‘‘nays.’’ 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment is not agreed 

to. 

Are there further amendments? 

If there are no further amendments, the question is on agreeing 

to the amendment in—— 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I believe the 

gentlelady from Texas has an amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlelady from Texas has 

never been at a loss for words. If she has an amendment, she can 

offer it herself. [Laughter.] 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the 

gentlelady from Texas seek recognition? 

85 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have an amendment at the desk. 

And I am so glad that you are reaffirming my right to the First 

Amendment. Thank you. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. That has never been abridged. 

And the clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. 

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 5092, offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. 

Strike section 4 and redesignate succeeding sections accordingly.’’ 

[The amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee follows:] 


5092D.eps
86 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the gentlewoman is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Just a few blocks from this august building, three of the nation’s 

mayors are sitting on a panel discussing the increase of gun violence in their cities. Frankly, they are present at the Congressional 

Black Caucus legislative weekend to ask Congress to be more sensitive and responsive to the proliferating gun violence that we have 

in this nation. 

Just a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to participate in one 

of the many immigration hearings. At that hearing, there was a 

discussion of the drug and gun violence in Nuevo Laredo. That is, 

of course, in Mexico. 

But one of the issues had to do with the spillover of that gun violence into Laredo, Texas. And so it is clear that there needs to be 

a further reinforcement of the responsible legislation necessary to 

ensure responsible use of guns and the protection of the innocent. 

My amendment maintains the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to put corrupt gun dealers out 

of business and, thus, help reduce the carnage taking place in 

many of the nation’s major urban centers, by striking section 4 of 

the bill. 

H.R. 5092 was introduced by Chairman Coble and the Ranking 

Member, Mr. Scott, as a bipartisan attempt to address enforcement 

issues raised during ATF oversight hearings conducted by the Subcommittee. 

I congratulate their effort. I appreciate their leadership. But 

those hearings focused on ATF’s gun show enforcement program 

and generally on ATF’s licensing and revocation authority over 

Federal firearms licensees. 

The bill addresses a number of issues relating to ATF enforcement authority, including authorization of civil penalties, creation 

of independent administrative law judges to hear enforcement 

cases, definitions of serious and non-serious violations, DOJ inspector general investigations, ATF gun show enforcement, and other 

support provisions. 

Most significantly, for purposes of my amendment, modification 

of the requisite intent for violation. The bill in section 4, entitled 

‘‘definition of willfully,’’ that ‘‘willfully’’ is defined as ‘‘intentionally, 

purposefully, and with the intent to act in violation of a known 

legal duty.’’ 

My concern with this provision of the bill is that it defines ‘‘willfully’’ to impose a much higher standard of proof upon law enforcement officers than currently. 

We have got to give law enforcement officers the right tools to 

do the right things, but at the same time, we must provide them 

with the tools to protect the innocent. 

There does not appear to be any compelling reason for increasing 

the government’s evidentiary burden is time. My amendment simply restores the restoration of the definition of ‘‘willfulness’’ to its 

well settled meaning that defendant knew his conduct was unlawful; not that he knew the specific statute he is accused of violating 

or the specific intent to violate that precise provision. 

Mr. Chairman, that determination will be made beyond a reasonable doubt or in civil penalties. It will allow the individual, in a 

87 

preponderance of evidence, to prove that they did not intend to 

break the law. 

That is fair enough, because guns kill. And some people say people kill with guns, but guns kill and there are people with criminal 

intent that will buy guns from gun shows and they will kill. 

Mr. Chairman, changing the evidentiary standards governing 

elements of penal offenses should be done sparingly and with the 

utmost care. This is particularly true whereas here we do not have 

the benefit of the considered views of thoughtful criminal law scholars, experienced prosecutors and police officers with front line experience, or the Department of Justice. 

Let’s help our nation’s major mayors and rural communities. The 

redefinition of ‘‘willfully’’ contained in the bill illustrates my concern. As I noted, the bill defines ‘‘willfully’’ as intentionally, purposely and with the intent to act in violation of a known legal duty. 

This definition, however, has been repeatedly rejected by the 

Federal courts, Bryan v. U.S., 524–184, the U.S. v. Andre case, the 

U.S. v. Aleck, and the U.S. v. Collins. 

In the Bryan case, the defendant was convicted of willfully dealing in firearms without a Federal license. Specifically, the defendant did not have a Federal firearms license. He used so-called store 

purchasers in Ohio to acquire pistols he could not have bought 

himself; that he knew the store purchasers made false statements 

when purchasing the guns; that the defendant assured the store 

purchasers that he would file off the serial numbers; and, that the 

defendant resold the guns on Brooklyn street corners known for 

drug dealing. 

Despite this conduct, defendant claimed that he could not be convicted under the Federal firearm laws unless the government 

proved he knew of the Federal licensing requirement. 

The Supreme Court soundly rejected this claim, stating, ‘‘The 

willfulness requirement does not carve out an exception to the traditional rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse.’’ 

Knowledge that the conduct is unlawful is all that is required. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, seek recognition? 

Mr. COBLE. I will speak in opposition to the amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. COBLE. And I won’t take 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman. 

This provision, of course, is restricted only to civil matters, not 

criminal, and it is intended to distinguish between the licensee actions that are knowing and intentional versus good faith or administrative mistakes and recordkeeping. 

The Subcommittee heard testimony, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, on this issue that ATF treats virtually all errors in dealers’ records, no matter how few or how minor, as willful violations. 

Any error could result in a license revocation. It just seems that 

this is not there. 

For the benefit of Members of the Committee, Mr. Chairman, I 

will be brief about this. But we had a witness that appeared before 

88 

Mr. Scott and me who cited the fact that a licensee received a revocation notice who wrote the initials ‘‘Y’’ or ‘‘N’’ in lieu of writing 

out the words ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ on a firearms transaction form. 

This seems to violate common sense, to me. And in a number of 

transactions, a revocation notice cited the failure of the firearms 

purchaser to identify the county of residence, although the purchaser did clearly and notoriously list his city of residence. 

So for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, seek recognition? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The violence in D.C. is certainly something that 

we need to be very concerned about and I would humbly submit 

that one of the things that has concerned me is the fact that guns 

were prohibited in Washington, D.C. 

And there is something to the old bumper stickers that says, 

‘‘When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.’’ Back in Texas, 

after a disaster where a gunman came in to a cafeteria and began 

shooting people, it was realized we need to have guns in the hands 

of lawful, legal, law-abiding people. 

And so we passed a concealed carry and violent crime has been 

going down ever since. So I would submit that may be a good thing 

for us to take a look at. 

I do recall back in the early 1990’s, under President Clinton, the 

secretary of state, a man from Texas, stood up in front of the country and said, ‘‘What we need to do is raise the fees for gun dealers 

tenfold and that will bring an end to so much of this gun violence 

in America.’’ 

Well, it didn’t, because I can tell you, in all my years as a judge, 

the guns that were constantly used in crimes were not bought from 

sporting good dealers. I didn’t even have them from gun shows. I 

had them bought out of people’s trunks, stolen out of other people’s 

homes, things like that. 

And so that kind of thing ended up penalizing law-abiding gun 

dealers and it did nothing to actually address the real problem, the 

underlying problem, and that was the criminals that use them and 

tying the hands of law-abiding folks that could counter that. 

And I would just submit, in conclusion and before I yield back 

my time, that the bumper sticker is quite true that says, ‘‘Guns kill 

people the same way it is spoons that really make people fat.’’ 

I yield back. 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 

Weiner, for what purpose do you seek recognition? 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to seek to respond to 

that erudite presentation. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose do you seek recognition? 

Mr. WEINER. Five minutes to strike the last word, please. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. That is better. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

89 

Mr. WEINER. I don’t know where to start, the spoons or the 

trunks. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I think I resent erudite, I am not sure. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time belongs to the gentleman 

from New York, all 5 minutes of it. 

Mr. WEINER. First, let me just clarify a couple of questions or 

fact. First of all, what the gentleman from North Carolina said 

about the knowingly standard is incorrect. 

Under the gentlelady’s amendment, if you have an inadvertent 

error, that would not be a basis for sanction. The Bryan standard 

did not say if you put a ‘‘Y’’ or an ‘‘N.’’ The Bryan standard for willingly said, you know, if you show a pattern again and again and 

again and again of someone violating the law, that is enough to 

show willfulness. 

Now, I doubt, and who knows, I am surprised in this debate all 

the time, but I doubt that the gentleman from North Carolina or 

the gentleman from Texas think that Bryan was a good guy and 

think that there shouldn’t have been sanctions brought against 

him. 

The question is, is the standard correct or not and I think the 

knowingly standard that the gentlelady from Texas is arguing for 

here is a good one. It says if you know what you are doing, even 

if you don’t know the specific section, if you know what you are 

doing is wrong, that that should be enough to bring sanctions. 

But I can’t let the example, as far off point as it was, by the gentleman from Texas, not be responded to. The guy who sells guns 

illegally in the back of the car is why we need good documentation 

and good trace data and why we need a strong ATF. 

You have got to understand it is the good gun dealer that is protected by these sections. The guy who is following the rules, documenting his actions, they are not the problem. I think the gentleman would agree. 

If somehow the gun is going from being legal when it is manufactured to becoming illegal, and what the ATF is asking for and what 

cities are asking for and what individuals are asking for is give 

somebody the tools, somebody the tools to be able to do that investigation and get the bad guys. 

We are not talking about 50 percent of the gun dealers. I mean, 

there is a statistic in my notes here somewhere about the relatively 

tiny percentage of gun dealers that are responsible by this trace 

data for all of the illegal handguns making their way that way. 

If you don’t believe in having an ATF, all right, I can it—listen, 

it is a weird position to have, but that is the direction you are 

going in with the Coble substitute. You are taking away their ability to put the heaviest sanctions. 

You are slowing down a process that is already excruciatingly 

slow. You are saying if it results in criminal sanctions, you kind 

of have a weird double-jeopardy situation going on. 

You are saying that if you choose not to observe the child lock 

provision, that we are not going to sanctions you. 

You have got all of these things. You have got this new classification of minor, which says you can’t lose your license at all, even 

if there are dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of them. 

90 

I agree with the gentleman from Texas. I don’t know, the spoon 

thing had me a little confused, but I agree with the gentleman 

from Texas, we need to get criminals. 

How do we do it? Well, we have got the ATF to do it. Why gut 

the few investigations and the few prosecutions that they are 

doing? If you want to get the guy selling guns out of the back of 

his car, and I know 99.9 percent of gun dealers want to get him, 

too, how do you do it? 

With a strong, empowered ATF, with a standard that leads to 

real enforcement. If you say that knowingly violating the law is too 

strong a standard, you are right. It is too strong a standard for the 

criminal who is selling it out of the back of his car. 

But for the gun dealer who wants to be a good player, it is no 

challenge. He just knows he can’t lose documents. He knows he has 

to write down the right thing. 

Who are we protecting? Who are we protecting, my colleagues, 

with the Coble substitute? Let’s really talk about that. 

We are protecting essentially a tiny group of gun dealers who are 

doing bad things. Don’t take it from me. Ask the ATF. They are 

doing 2 percent of their investigations lead to revocations, 2 percent. They are not getting the best 2, they are not getting—is WalMart on this list, as much as I dislike them, is Target? No. They 

are getting the rogue guy. 

Isn’t that who people who support gun rights want to get? Isn’t 

that the people like me who think we need tougher restrictions? 

We have agreement. We created the ATF. Why not just say what 

you mean? Do away with the ATF. Why the death by a thousand 

nicks here? 

So the gentleman is right, that is who we want to get. Now, he 

didn’t speak to the point of knowing and willful, but he is right 

about the overall point. As far as knowing and willful, knowing is 

a pretty tough standard. You have got to know that what you are 

doing is breaking the law every single time you do it, not simply 

having paperwork errors every once in a while. That person is not 

going to get stuck. 

And I yield what little time I have left to the gentlelady from 

Texas. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The question is on the Jackson Lee amendment. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. I think this is a very revealing discussion, and I 

would like the gentlelady from Texas to make any closing comments that she might like. I yield to her at this time. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished Ranking Member. 

And I am moved by the gentleman’s eloquent detailing of where 

we are going in this debate, both Mr. Conyers’ very frank statement, but Mr. Weiner, who has made a very potent point. 

I would wish that we could make this a very factual debate and 

discussion and, frankly, track or efforts toward the NRA that really 

want absolutely no regulations and provisions whatsoever. 

91 

The point that many of us are trying to make with these amendments is the point that the ATF has a duty. It is a civil duty, in 

some instances, and that is to make sure that the regulations of 

gun ownership, which are, if you will, consistent with the Second 

Amendment, which the Second Amendment is not a free-for-all. 

It is a constitutional right to be able to bear arms, but it is not 

a free-for-all. And so most likely you would not like to have a 2- 

year-old holding a gun. You would not like to have someone who 

is suffering from some failings of mental health have a gun. You 

wouldn’t want to have a domestic abuser have a gun, as well. 

And this is what ultimately happens when you have a reckless, 

non-supervised and no law enforcement overseeing of the movement of guns in America. We know that there are massive gun 

dealers coming from countries outside of the United States, making 

multi, multi millions of dollars and making sure that their guns get 

in the hands of those who have no intent of doing anything but 

doing harm. 

You now, if you will, emasculate the ATF to the extent that they 

have to take out a little card and say, ‘‘Is this willful?’’ Now, what 

is the definition of willful? 

Their job on the street is to arrest the bad guys. That means the 

individual who had people go to Ohio and misuse his identification 

or not use his identification, buy guns and then, ultimately, the 

drug dealers on the streets of Houston, Chicago, Kansas City, New 

York are then able to get their guns without any reprimand whatsoever. 

This is, in essence, taking the law away from ATF and simply 

saying, ‘‘Look pretty, wear a uniform, and just let us pay you.’’ And 

I don’t think that that was the intent. 

One abuse, one play should be fixed. Obviously, we should find 

a way for the ATF to be able to supervise legitimate gun shows and 

be able to be responsible with a responsible gun dealer. 

Raiding gun shows recklessly is not what I am advocating for, 

but to take an incident in one city and, if you will, blindfold the 

rest of us and cause me in Houston to have to suffer through the 

thousands of gun shows experience every year, with illegal folks 

standing outside the gun shows and then trunks open, I think is 

an outrage. 

For you to suggest to me that because we are taking the word 

‘‘willfully out,’’ a 2-year-old gets a gun and shoots her 4-year-old 

brother and that is okay, I think is an outrage. 

And so I would ask my colleagues to consider spoons and various 

other anecdotes that have been told and really look at the life or 

death question that we are talking about. 

And that life or death question has to do with removing section 

4 that literally guts the responsibility of the ATF and their ability 

to respond to the need of the American people by ensuring that illegal gun dealers and those who are not attempting to follow the law 

and those who are attempting to really, if you will, have a cartel 

of guns on the streets and they don’t care who they sell it to, they 

are not interested in making sure that the guns are sold safely and 

legally, this is what this amendment is attempting to do. 

I ask my colleagues to stand on behalf of the children, families, 

security and the Second Amendment and vote for my amendment. 

I yield back. 

92 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from California seek recognition? 

Mr. ISSA. To strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ISSA. I will take only 1. 

In listening to the gentlelady, I have served on this Committee 

for 6 years, I have never spoken on a gun bill before. But I would 

ask that all of us throughout the rest of today, on this bill and others, recognize that we may disagree on the fundamentals. 

Clearly, this Committee is divided along those who historically 

have supported the Second Amendment and those who seem to constantly want to limit it, strike it, limit its importation, limit its 

sale. 

Hopefully, we can recognize that we can agree to disagree and 

do it in a civil way, without using rhetoric that is extreme. We do 

disagree along recognizable lines on the interpretation of the Second Amendment and people’s right to keep and bear arms. 

Mr. Chairman, one of my cousins, Richard Issa, is, in fact, an 

ATF agent and I would not be supporting this if I thought that it 

gutted Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire’s ability to do its job. Just the opposite. 

I think that the firearm portion of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 

will, in fact, be enhanced by us being reasonable in the message 

that we send to that agency and their enforcement. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the Jackson Lee 

amendment. 

Those in favor will say ‘‘aye.’’ 

Opposed, ‘‘no.’’ 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. rollcall, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay, first of all, let me state that 

the noes have it. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would like a roll-call vote, please, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A rollcall will be ordered. 

Those in favor of the Jackson Lee amendment in the second degree to the amendment in the nature of a substitute by Mr. Coble 

of North Carolina will, as your names are called, answer ‘‘aye,’’ 

those opposed, ‘‘no.’’ 

And the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, no. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, no. 

Mr. Gallegly? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Goodlatte? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

93 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. 

Mr. Lungren? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, no. 

Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. 

Mr. Bachus? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, no. 

Mr. Hostettler? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, no. 

Mr. Green? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Keller? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, no. 

Mr. Flake? 

Mr. FLAKE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, no. 

Mr. Pence? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, no. 

Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, no. 

Mr. Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, no. 

Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, no. 

Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gohmert, no. 

Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, aye. 

Mr. Berman? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Boucher? 

Mr. BOUCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher, no. 

Mr. Nadler? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Scott? 

94 

Mr. SCOTT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, aye. 

Mr. Watt? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. 

Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, aye. 

Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Wexler? 

Mr. WEXLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler, aye. 

Mr. Weiner? 

Mr. WEINER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, aye. 

Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. 

Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Van Hollen? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. 

Mrs. Wasserman Schultz? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Wasserman Schultz, aye. 

Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there Members who wish to cast 

or change their votes? 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren? 

Mr. LUNGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there further Members who 

wish to cast or change their vote? 

If not, the clerk will report. 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Who seeks recognition? 

Mr. WEINER. I have my final amendment, which is an amendment in the form of a substitute. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Well, the clerk has to report first. I 

know the gentleman is real eager to offer another amendment, but 

let’s find out what happened to this amendment first. 

Will the clerk please report? 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are nine ‘‘ayes’’ and 17 ‘‘nays.’’ 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment is not agreed 

to. 

95 

Now, for what purpose does the gentleman from New York seek 

recognition? 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, would this be an appropriate time 

to offer an amendment? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are you doing it in person or by 

proxy this time? 

Mr. WEINER. I would like to have an amendment at the desk. It 

is Weiner JDG-212. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report that amendment. 

The CLERK. ‘‘Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 

5092, offered by Mr. Weiner. Strike all after the enacting clause 

and insert’’—— 

[The amendment offered by Mr. Weiner follows:] 

96 

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE

TO H.R. 5092

OFFERED BY Ml. llllll

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘BATFE Modernization

3 and Reform Act’’.

4 SEC. 2. GRADUATED PENALTIES FOR CIVIL VIOLATIONS BY

5 FDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 923 of title 18, United

7 States Code, is amended by striking subsections (e) and

8 (f) and inserting the following:

9 ‘‘(e)(1) If the holder of a license issued under this

10 section knowingly violates any provision of this chapter or

11 any rule or regulation prescribed by the Attorney General

12 under this chapter, or fails to have secure gun storage or

13 safety devices available at any place in which firearms are

14 sold under the license to persons who are not licensed

15 under this section, or if a licensed dealer knowingly trans16 fers armor piercing ammunition, the Attorney General

17 may, after notice and opportunity for a hearing—


5092E.AAB
97 

2

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(A) suspend for not more than 6 months, or

2 revoke, the license issued under this section of the

3 licensee, and

4 ‘‘(B) impose on the licensee a civil money pen5 alty of not more than $10,000 per violation.

6 ‘‘(2) The Attorney General may not, under paragraph

7 (1), revoke a license for failure to have secure gun storage

8 or safety devices available at any place in which firearms

9 are sold under the license to persons who are not licensed

10 under this section if a secure gun storage or safety device

11 is temporarily unavailable because of theft, casualty loss,

12 consumer sales, backorders from a manufacturer, or any

13 other similar reason beyond the control of the licensee.

14 ‘‘(3) The Attorney General may, after notice and op15 portunity for a hearing, suspend a license issued under

16 this section if the holder of the license has been indicted

17 for knowingly violating any provision of this chapter or

18 any rule or regulation prescribed by the Attorney General

19 under this chapter.

20 ‘‘(f)(1) If the Attorney General denies an application

21 for a license under this section, suspends or revokes a li22 cense issued under this section, or imposes a civil money

23 penalty on a person under subsection (e), the Attorney

24 General shall provide the person with a written notice

25 which states specifically the grounds on which the applicaVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:58 Sep 23, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR672.XXX HR672

5092E.AAC
98 

3

H.L.C.

1 tion was denied, the license was suspended or revoked, or

2 the civil money penalty was imposed, as the case may be.

3 The Attorney General shall provide such a notice of the

4 suspension or revocation of a license to the holder of the

5 license not less than 14 days before the effective date of

6 the suspension or revocation, except that, for good cause,

7 the Attorney General shall provide the notice as soon as

8 is practicable before such effective date.

9 ‘‘(2) If the Attorney General denies an application

10 for a license, suspends or revokes a license, or imposes

11 a civil money penalty, the Attorney General shall, on re12 quest by the aggrieved party, promptly hold a hearing to

13 review the denial, suspension, or revocation of the license,

14 or the imposition of the penalty, as the case may be. A

15 hearing under this paragraph shall be held at a location

16 convenient to the aggrieved party and shall be conducted

17 pursuant to chapter 5 of title 5.

18 ‘‘(3) If, after a hearing held under paragraph (2), the

19 Attorney General decides not to reverse the decision to

20 deny an application, to suspend or revoke a license, or to

21 impose a civil money penalty, as the case may be, the At22 torney General shall give notice of the decision to the ag23 grieved party. The aggrieved party may, within 30 days

24 after the date notice is so given, file a petition with the

25 United States district court for the district in which the


5092E.AAD
99 

4

H.L.C.

1 party resides or in which the party’s principal place of

2 business is located for judicial review of the denial, suspen3 sion, or revocation of the license, or the imposition of the

4 penalty, as the case may be. The judicial review shall be

5 conducted pursuant to chapter 7 of title 5. If the court

6 decides that the Attorney General was not authorized to

7 deny the application, to suspend or revoke the license, or

8 to impose the civil money penalty, as the case may be,

9 the court shall order the Attorney General to take such

10 action as may be necessary to comply with the judgment

11 of the court.’’.

12 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

13 (1) Section 925(b) of such title is amended by

14 inserting ‘‘, unless the license is suspended pursuant

15 to section 923(e)(3)’’ before the period.

16 (2) Section 923(d)(1)(C) of such title is amend17 ed by striking ‘‘willfully’’ and inserting ‘‘knowingly’’.

18 (3) Section 923(d)(1)(D) of such title is amend19 ed by striking ‘‘willfully’’ and inserting ‘‘knowingly’’.


5092E.AAE
100 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read. And the gentleman from New York will be recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEINER. I thank the Chairman. This is a substitute that 

seeks to address some of the concerns that have been raised and 

some we haven’t gotten to yet. 

But I want to thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, for 

striking a tone that I think is important here. If the gentleman 

perceives that there is a certain level of passion to this issue, it is 

because in cities like mine, these are not academic rule-making 

things. 

In cities like mine, they are not constitutional debates in the abstract about the correct interpretation of a Second Amendment that 

was written a couple of hundred years ago. 

This is about illegally sold guns that are coming to cities like 

mine and killing children and killing police officers and killing people just about every single day, that we are trying to stop. 

Now, I don’t know how you do it except by having an empowered 

ATF, with an empowered ability to do everything we can to track 

guns from that moment they are legal to when they are used in 

that crime. 

And if you believe that we should approach this issue with perhaps a little less passion and heat, I am sorry. It is not going to 

happen, because people are burying their relatives, police officers, 

children are getting shot. 

We heard the testimony from the mayor of the city of New York, 

a Republican, talking about part of his job is having to go to funerals where people are being killed with illegal guns that start out 

somewhere, and we know where they are starting. 

The ATF knows where they are and what you are saying with 

this bill is don’t punish them. And if you think that is hyperbole, 

let me tell you about some other cases. 

You know, the Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Washington 

shot Bushmaster rifles to the D.C. snipers, even though both were 

on the prohibited list. Perhaps the most high profile case maybe in 

American history dealing with the gun, or at least in recent memory. 

And 238 guns in the inventory of that shop had disappeared over 

a 3-year period. The owner has had the revocation of his license on 

appeal since 2003. He is selling guns to this day. 

Now, if you believe that that is an okay state of affairs, then 

keep the existing law. If you believe that is still too liberal, too generous, pass the Coble amendment and keep him selling guns for 

years to come. 

Trader Sports in San Laredo, California, in 2003, an ATF audit 

found, as I said earlier, 7,477 firearms had no documentation. They 

essentially were missing. Now, are they in the back of some guy’s 

truck that he is selling to criminals, that the gentleman from Texas 

articulated in his example? Maybe. 

He had his license revoked in 2004 and was selling guns after 

that audit for two additional years of appeals, until June 2006. 

If you think this is a steel-jaw trap of enforcement, these are two 

high profile cases. 

Perhaps the highest-profile case is one that returns to this exact 

bill. I am going to read you the description of a gun dealer who, 

101 

under this Coble bill, would be considered a minor offender, under 

this bill. 

In 2001, an audit found improper paperwork on 419 of 903 transactions examined and a 133 lost guns, this dealer. In 2003, an 

audit found 422 of 1,524 guns that should have been in inventory 

were missing. That was a 2001 audit and then a 2003 audit. 

Ranked 37th of 80,000 dealers in the number of guns linked to 

crime, 500 crime guns in 2004 came from this one dealer. The license was revoked, but under 5092, every single one of those things 

would be considered a minor offense. The name of this dealer is 

Sanford Abrams, and he is a board member of the National Rifle 

Association and the owner of the Valley Gun Shop outside of Baltimore. 

Now, if you think that record is a list of minor offenses and that 

we were too tough on that guy, remember, it started in 2001, it 

wasn’t until last year that it was revoked. 

If you think the process is too strong, if you think the process 

is too vigorous, if you think the process is too onerous, vote for the 

Coble bill. And maybe go even further and do what the Coble bill 

is on the way to doing, which is taking firearms enforcement out 

of the ATF. 

But if you think that some of these things can be done in a more 

reasonable way, having the burden of proof be knowingly rather 

than willful, saying the ATF can revoke the gun license who knowingly break the law, allow fines of up to $10,000 per violation, 

doesn’t take this carve-out that allows them—that prevents enforcement on gun safety—— 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The question is—— 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California seek recognition? 

Ms. WATERS. I move to strike the last word. And I yield to the 

gentleman from New York. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WEINER. And I thank the gentlelady for yielding, as I continue to explain that this—one of the sections of the bill repeals the 

separate penalties for not having child safety locks on handguns. 

That is one of the things we are doing today. 

My substitute would also take away this terrible disincentive to 

bring criminal cases against the worst offenders by having this notion that if you fail in the criminal case, you lose the administrative bite at the apple. 

My colleagues, I agree with the gentleman from California, we do 

have some ideological differences here. I do believe that one of 

them has never been should we have an ATF that does its job. 

If you don’t believe in this recordkeeping thing, just say it. If you 

believe that the 95 percent of the gun dealers who are not responsible for not keeping records and who do fine when the ATF comes 

and visits, they are more than helpful when government officials 

visit, then, frankly, we do have a difference that goes beyond philosophy. 

Ms. WATERS. Would the gentleman yield for a moment? 

102 

Mr. WEINER. I certainly will. It is your time. 

Ms. WATERS. I am sorry. I missed what you said about the child 

safety locks. 

Mr. WEINER. If the gentlelady would yield me the time. 

Ms. WATERS. I yield back. 

Mr. WEINER. There are separate penalties under the law that 

were enacted in 2005 for failure to provide for a child safety lock 

for handguns. This language in this bill, unwittingly, accordingly 

to the gentleman from Virginia, I am not so sure, listening to some 

of the debate here today, strikes those separate provisions. 

Now, we can re-argue the child safety lock debate, if that is what 

my colleagues want. But I say to the gentlelady from California 

this is really a surrogate debate for something else. 

This is not about whether we are going to get the bad guys, because that is what the ATF wants to do. They are only doing it in 

a relatively tiny percentage, as the statistics show. 

This is about an entirely different discussion, a whole new frontier beyond where the gentleman from California described debates 

up to now. 

What they are essentially doing with this modernization and reform act, and I say that with sarcasm, is they are taking away the 

ATF’s last remaining arrows in their quiver. 

When you have someone like a gun show that ranks 37 among 

80,000 dealers and he can still be considered a minor offender 

under this bill, it is clear what they are doing. 

When you say that the ATF is working too hard, when the shopkeeper that sold the Bushmaster rifle to D.C. snipers, even though 

both were on the list that they are required to check of prohibited 

people. Imagine if, God willing, they would have said, ‘‘You know 

what? We are not going to sell and we are going to call someone 

and say ‘Someone is coming around here trying to buy who is on 

the list,’’’ it prevents the ATF from shutting down people like this. 

That is who my colleagues are defending here. We shouldn’t be. 

Your brother deserves to be honored by giving him the tools he 

needs to do his job. We dishonor him by saying, ‘‘You know what? 

You are doing too much,’’ saying 1 percent or 2 percent, saying that 

we should keep the guy who is the 37th ranked out of 80,000 

should be considered a minor offender. 

Does that honor the work of people who are trying to enforce the 

law, let alone the memories of those that are lost to these guns? 

Look, I believe in doing away with the pretense here. Let’s have 

a discussion whether you should have the ATF. It would be a tough 

vote for you guys. You know what? Prepare that amendment, Josh. 

Let’s see if we should even have an ATF. Isn’t that what this is 

about? Is this about doing the bidding, because you have a board 

member who found, in an audit in 2001, he lost guns, in 2003 he 

lost guns, has 500 guns linked to crime? Isn’t that what this is 

about, doing the bidding of a special interest here in Washington, 

when that special interest is responsible for more guns being on 

the street that are killing the citizens of our country? 

Isn’t that what this is about? This isn’t about a broad philosophical debate anymore. This is about protecting the very, very, 

very worst. 

And let me conclude with this, 99 percent of the gun dealers 

probably are watching this on television and saying, ‘‘Boy, I am 

103 

glad my dues for the NRA are paying off.’’ But they are also saying, 

‘‘This doesn’t affect me. I keep my records. I don’t sell to rogue 

guys. By the way, I probably know who the 5 percent are, but I 

am not doing it.’’ 

We are trying to protect them, as well. What this bill is doing 

is neutering the ATF and I hope you vote for the substitute, which 

gives them a flexibility, takes out some of the highest standard, 

takes out some of the clerical things that Mr. Scott says was a mistake, like the child safety lock thing, prevents a fire sale of guns 

60 days after you have lost your license. 

And then the answer is, ‘‘Oh, but they are going to want to follow 

the law.’’ They lost their license. They are like the worst you can 

imagine. It takes that provision out. 

And I urge my colleagues, in a spirit of comity and also in a spirit of understanding that we all believe, I would hope that there is 

a need for a strong ATF. 

And I yield back the time to the gentlelady from California. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the time of the gentlewoman 

from California has expired. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia seek recognition? 

Mr. SCOTT. Move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the gentleman is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if I can get the attention of the gentleman from 

North Carolina, Mr. Coble. 

The gentleman from New York has indicated concern about the 

child safety lock provision. It is my understanding that the language in the bill does, in fact, change the present law. 

Is it the intention of the sponsor of the bill to make sure that 

when the bill is presented to the floor, that we correct that oversight and reinstate the present law on child safety locks? 

Mr. COBLE. If the gentlewoman would yield to me. If you will 

yield, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. I will yield. 

Mr. COBLE. I said earlier that you and I had agreed to do that, 

and I made that clear previously. 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from New York. 

Mr. WEINER. Would the two gentleman who helped craft this bill, 

if we are able to craft an amendment now to do that, would you 

vote in favor of it? 

Mr. COBLE. Well, I don’t know that it is necessary. 

Mr. WEINER. We are in the process of marking up legislation. It 

is generally where that kind of thing is done. 

Mr. COBLE. We can look at it and work with you as we go along. 

I want to be sure it is done technically correct. But Mr. Scott and 

I, I think, are as good as our word. 

Mr. WEINER. I thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time. I yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina seek recognition? 

Mr. COBLE. To strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized. 

104 

Mr. COBLE. And, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I will not take 

the full 5 minutes, but I want to say this to you. 

I think I have implied it before, but the response to this bill, Mr. 

Scott’s and my bill and a 137 cosponsors, the response from the 

ATF in opposition, the silence has been deafening. 

Now, that tells me that the ATF is not all that upset about this. 

Usually, the way matters are transacted on this Hill, if I embrace 

a piece of proposed legislation and X, Y and Z are opposed to it, 

oftentimes they will knock my door down, at least knock on the 

door and sometimes knock it down, expressing their opposition. 

I have not heard from the ATF in opposition. 

And, finally, as to Mr. Weiner’s amendment, he retains ATF employees as administrative law judges. Mr. Scott and I designate 

neutral ALJs, which I think would afford more objectivity. 

Mr. Weiner does not distinguish between minor and serious violations, thereby still permitting revocations as a result of innocuous 

clerical errors. 

Finally, suspension after indictment is usually not practical, because generally civil proceedings are routinely stayed pending the 

disposition of criminal matters. 

So with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman yield back? 

Mr. COBLE. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Maryland, for 

what purpose do you seek recognition? And the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Whenever we have this debate on gun safety bills, gun control 

bills, we often hear from the other side, ‘‘We don’t need any new 

legislation, we don’t need any new gun safety laws. Let’s just enforce the existing laws that are on the books.’’ 

And now we have a piece of legislation that seeks to undo the 

existing laws on the books, that seeks to undermine the ATF and 

seeks to make it much more difficult for them to go after the bad 

apples. 

Now, Mr. Weiner has made the point that a very small percentage of gun dealers are responsible for selling the great majority of 

guns that are used in crimes. In fact, 1 percent of licensed dealers 

account for over 60 percent of the guns used in crimes. 

And under existing law, forget the changes in Mr. Coble’s bill, 

under existing law, the ATF has had a very difficult time going 

after them and now we have a piece of legislation to make it even 

more difficult to go after the bad apples. 

You have got to ask yourself the question why. Now, Mr. Coble 

raised the point that he hasn’t heard from anyone in the existing 

ATF. Well, as I understand this Bush administration’s position, I 

don’t even know if they have a position, but I am not at all surprised to hear that somebody at the ATF isn’t coming down and 

telling us what they think about this bill. 

Unfortunately, you have to retire from the ATF these days to be 

able to speak your mind and it is what you believe. And if you look 

at people who are retired from the ATF, you will see that they have 

come out against this bill. 

In fact, the bill is opposed by former ATF members, including 

former director Stephen Higgins and Rex Davis. And, Mr. ChairVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:58 Sep 23, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR672.XXX HR672
105 

man, I would like to submit for the record a letter to the Congress, 

dated June 29, 2006, from a number of former officials at the ATF 

in opposition to this bill. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the letter will be 

put in the record. 

[The letter follows:] 


5092F1.eps
106 


5092F2.eps
107 


5092F3.eps
108 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. And I would just like to read the first paragraph, since Mr. Coble raised this issue. Again, it is signed by a 

number of former ATF officials. 

‘‘As former officials of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives, we write to urge you to oppose H.R. 5092. Far from 

modernizing ATF, this legislation would severely undermine the 

bureau and protect corrupt gun dealers and gun traffickers. If 

passed, this bill would make it extremely difficult for ATF to successfully prosecute gun traffickers and dealers who break the law 

or revoke dealers’ licenses.’’ 

So these are the people that worked at ATF. These are the people who now are free to speak their minds from the ATF and they 

clearly see this as undermining our ability to go after the bad apples. 

I would also say that this legislation is opposed by the Major 

City Chiefs Association, the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police, and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. 

Now, Mr. Weiner mentioned a couple of cases. He mentioned the 

case of the gun shop in Tacoma, Washington, that had a record of 

losing guns, of gross negligence, and he mentioned Sanford Adams, 

who is a dealer in Maryland. 

Both these cases have had a direct impact on my State of Maryland. Sanford Abrams is a gun dealer in the State. As you can see, 

he is one of the worst offenders. The ATF has said in court documents that he is one of the most reckless sellers of guns and they 

said, and I quote from the documents, ‘‘a serial violator who has 

endangered the public.’’ 

And, yet, under existing law, they have not been successful yet 

in revoking his license. And now we want to say, ‘‘Let’s change the 

law and make it even harder.’’ 

Mr. Weiner went through some of the statistics with respect to 

Mr. Sanford’s sales. The fact of the matter is, and he has not disputed the substance of these, he had more than 900 violations of 

Federal gun laws, 900. 

In 2003, the audit found that several machines guns had been 

sold without proper records. A gun had been sold without proper 

background check and 422 guns, and get this, 28 percent of his inventory were missing, 28 percent of his inventory were missing. 

And under existing law, they haven’t been able to revoke his license. We want to make it even harder. 

Now, with respect to the sales out of the gun shop in Washington 

State, the victims were here in the Washington area. I don’t know 

how many people were here back in October 2002, but this whole 

area was essentially under siege. 

Many of my constituents were killed in those sniper shootings. 

Other people in Washington, D.C., and Virginia were killed. The 

owner of that gun shop in Washington State had a record of losing 

his inventory. 

And under this legislation, there would be absolutely no recourse 

in going after him, except for his violations, which would be considered petty, minor violations. 

I just want to close with this, Mr. Chairman. I don’t understand 

why we were passing legislation—— 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

109 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN.—those who are the worst wrongdoers. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The question is on the Weiner—— 

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I would like to yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague, Mr. Meehan. 

I just want to go back to the fundamental question here, which 

is under existing law, the ATF has found it difficult to revoke the 

licenses of the worst abusers, a small percentage of gun dealers responsible for the great percentage of guns used in gun violence, 

under existing law. 

And now we have to ask ourselves the question why are we going 

to make it even more difficult for them to do it. 

Let’s listen to the folks from the ATF, who now have the freedom 

to speak their mind, who aren’t under the gag rule of this Administration, people who have served the ATF in Republican and Democratic administrations alike. 

Why don’t we listen to the folks in law enforcement and why 

don’t we look them in the eye and tell them why we are making 

it more difficult for them to go after the people most responsible 

for selling guns negligently and gross negligently that find their 

way into the hands of—— 

Ms. WATERS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Yes, I would be happy to yield. 

Ms. WATERS. I am sorry. Did you say that the guns that were 

sold to Lee Malvo and John Muhammad, the snipers that killed all 

of those people, were directly traceable to one of these bad dealers 

that has been identified by ATF as a problem? 

Were you alluding to them or talking about them? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I was, indeed, a gun shop in the State of 

Washington. And, in fact, the ATF has found a whole slew of violations with respect—in fact, the guns that were sold to Malvo and 

Muhammad were, in fact, sold illegally. 

They were ineligible to buy guns and it turned out, when the gun 

shop was asked about those particular guns, they had no record of 

the sales. They just had disappeared. They had no record of the 

sales. 

Ms. WATERS. And this bill would make it even easier for this gun 

dealer to do that kind of thing? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. It would make it even more difficult for the 

ATF to try and take away their license for the kind of violations 

that they engaged in, yes. 

Ms. WATERS. Wow. Thank you. I yield back. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Texas seek recognition? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I move to strike the last word. 

110 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I listened to my good friend 

just a few minutes ago from California that mentioned the story 

that—Mr. Issa is not here, but mentioned his relationship to an 

ATF officer and suggested that comments might have been strident. 

As I am reminded of the arguments that I gave in support of an 

amendment previously before this Committee, the arguments and 

debate was based upon constitutional premise or Federal court decision. 

I stand by the representation that guns kill, bullets kill. Different types of bullets create even more destructive violence than 

others. Gun dealers not only sell guns, but they sell bullets. 

Therefore, this is a life or death question. And listen to any of 

the major mayors of major cities and they will tell you how difficult 

it is to fight the war on drugs and other violent activities with the 

proliferation of guns on their streets. 

We rely upon local law enforcement, but, as well, we rely upon 

Federal authority. The ATF has been an effective tool in breaking 

the gun cartels and the misuse and illegal selling of guns across 

the country. 

I, too, agree with my colleague, Mr. Van Hollen, that we should 

listen to these former ATF officers, who have no axe to grind whatsoever, and they have indicated in a letter to this Committee that 

H.R. 5092 redefines most violations of Federal laws as not of a serious nature. 

It prohibits license revocations for such so-called non-serious violations, no matter how egregious the violation. And it limits serious 

violations to rare events. 

That impedes the work of the ATF and it opens the doors to the 

example that I utilized of the 2-year-old, because of someone not 

responsible having a gun in their home and that person not responsible may be someone with a record who has been able to secure 

a gun through some misuse of the process of gun dealers, who then 

have the guns going from one hand to the next. 

That gun dealer or that gun purchaser, even into their home, 

puts the gun in an illegal place. It may be under a bed and a child 

finds it. 

This chain of violations does not end at the point of purchase. 

This chain of violations then becomes a chain, one illegal act to the 

next. A person who is not supposed to legally be able to secure a 

gun misusing it, someone loses their life or is severe injured, some 

law enforcement officer doing their job is shot by a gun illegally secured, because the ATF officer was not able to use a basic premise 

that the gun dealer knew the infractions that they were perpetrating were illegal and they were violating the law. 

According to these ATF officers, H.R. 5092 also grants ATF the 

ability to impose fines and temporary license suspension, also then 

places such severe impediments on ATF’s ability to impose these 

sanctions and to make them nearly meaningless. 

So H.R. 5092 may be well meaning to fix one problem with one 

gun show in one city in one State, but, frankly, what it does is 

causes dutiful law enforcement officers, taking an oath of office, 

confined to doing their job right and who I believe, if infracting or 

111 

not doing their job right, certainly should have their own internal 

reprimand. 

But what we are doing now is playing in a handicap that they 

cannot win. We are giving them the ninth inning, we are giving 

them two-and-a-half outs, and we have no one on base and we have 

someone coming that literally plays, if you will, kindergarten softball to come hit the ball. 

This is the wrong direction for us to take and the strident nature 

of any one discussion is because it is a life and death matter. 

I certainly hope my colleagues would consider this as H.R. 5092 

is continued to be debated. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. The question is on the substitute amendment offered by the 

gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner. 

Anybody else want to say anything about it? 

Okay, all those in favor of the Weiner substitute will say ‘‘aye.’’ 

Opposed, ‘‘no.’’ 

The noes appear to have it, and the noes have it, and the Weiner 

substitute is not agreed to. 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, may I request a recorded vote? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A record vote is requested. 

Those in favor of the Weiner substitute will, as your names are 

called, answer ‘‘aye,’’ those opposed, ‘‘no.’’ 

And the clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Coble? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, no. 

Mr. Gallegly? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Goodlatte? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. 

Mr. Lungren? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, no. 

Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. 

Mr. Bachus? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, no. 

Mr. Hostettler? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, no. 

112 

Mr. Green? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Keller? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, no. 

Mr. Flake? 

Mr. FLAKE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, no. 

Mr. Pence? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, no. 

Mr. King? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, no. 

Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, no. 

Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gohmert, no. 

Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, aye. 

Mr. Berman? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Boucher? 

Mr. BOUCHER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher, no. 

Mr. Nadler? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, aye. 

Mr. Watt? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

Ms. Jackson Lee? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee, aye. 

Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, aye. 

Mr. Meehan? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan, aye. 

Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Wexler? 

113 

Mr. WEXLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler, aye. 

Mr. Weiner? 

Mr. WEINER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, aye. 

Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. 

Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

[No response.] 

Mr. Van Hollen? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. 

Mrs. Wasserman Schultz? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Wasserman Schultz, aye. 

Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there further Members who 

wish to cast or change their vote? 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from California, Mr. 

Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there further Members who 

wish to cast or change their vote? 

If not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 10 ‘‘ayes’’ and 16 ‘‘nays.’’ 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute is not agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

Is there an amendment at the desk? 

Mr. WEINER. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I will hold on that. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there further amendments? 

If there are no further amendments, the question is on the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman 

from North Carolina, Mr. Coble. 

Those in favor will say ‘‘aye.’’ 

Opposed, ‘‘no.’’ 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment 

in the nature of a substitute is agreed to. 

A reporting quorum is present. The question is on the motion to 

report the bill H.R. 5092 favorably, as amended. 

All those in favor will say ‘‘aye.’’ 

Opposed, ‘‘no.’’ 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered reported favorably, as amended. 

114 

Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to the 

House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, incorporating the amendments adopted here today. 

Without objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and 

conforming changes. And all Members will be given 2 days, as provided by the House rules, in which to submit additional dissenting, 

supplemental or minority views. 

[Additional material submitted by Mr. Conyers follows:] 


092G0001.eps
115 


092G0002.eps
116 


092G0003.eps
117 


092G0004.eps
118 


092G0005.eps
119 


092G0006.eps
120 


092G0007.eps
121 


092G0008.eps
122 


092G0009.eps
123 


092G0010.eps
124 


092G0011.eps
125 


092G0012.eps
126 


092G0013.eps
127 


092G0014.eps
128 


092G0015.eps
129 


092G0016.eps
130 


092G0017.eps
131 


092G0018.eps
132 


092G0019.eps
133 


092G0020.eps
134 


092G0021.eps
135 


092G0022.eps
136 


092G0023.eps
137 


092G0024.eps
138 


092G0025.eps
139 


092G0026.eps
140 


092G0027.eps
141 


092G0028.eps
142 


092G0029.eps
143 


092G0030.eps
144 


092G0031.eps
145 


092G0032.eps
146 


092G0033.eps
147 


092G0034.eps
148 


092G0035.eps
149 


092G0036.eps
150 


092G0037.eps
151 


092G0038.eps
152 


092G0039.eps
153 


092G0040.eps
154 


092G0041.eps
155 


092G0042.eps
156 


092G0043.eps
157 


092G0044.eps
158 


092G0045.eps
159 


092G0046.eps
160 


092G0047.eps
161 


092G0048.eps
162 


092G0049.eps
163 


092G0050.eps
164 


092G0051.eps
165 


092G0052.eps
166 


092G0053.eps
167 


092G0054.eps
168 


092G0055.eps
169 


092G0056.eps
170 


092H0001.eps
171 


092H0002.eps
172 


092H0003.eps
173 


092H0004.eps
174 


092H0005.eps
175 


092H0006.eps
176 


092H0007.eps
177 


092H0008.eps
178 


092H0009.eps
179 


092H0010.eps
180 


092H0011.eps
181 


092H0012.eps
182 


092H0013.eps
183 


092H0014.eps
184 


092H0015.eps
185 


092H0016.eps
186 


092H0017.eps
187 


092I0001.eps
188 


092I0002.eps
189 


092I0003.eps
190 


092I0004.eps
191 


092I0005.eps
192 


092I0006.eps
193 


092I0007.eps
194 


092I0008.eps
195 


092I0009.eps
196 


092I0010.eps
197 


092I0011.eps
198 


092I0012.eps
199 


092I0013.eps
200 


092I0014.eps
201 


092I0015.eps
202 


092I0016.eps
203 


092I0017.eps
204 


092I0018.eps
205 


092I0019.eps
206 


092I0020.eps
207 


092I0021.eps
208 


092I0022.eps
209 


092I0023.eps
210 


092I0024.eps
211 


092I0025.eps
212 

[Intervening business.] 

[Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


092I0026.eps
(213) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

We dissent from the passage of H.R. 5092, the ‘‘BATFE Modernization and Reform Act of 2006,’’ and the approach that it takes 

to deal with this very important issue. 

As currently drafted, H.R. 5092 threatens to substantially undermine BATFE’s power to revoke the federal firearms licenses of corrupt gun dealers. If enacted, the legislation would make it virtually 

impossible for BATFE to shut down rogue gun dealers who repeatedly violate federal law. It would largely replace BATFE’s revocation powers with minimal fines and temporary license suspensions 

that BATFE could impose only if it proved that a dealer deliberately intended to violate federal law, an extreme standard for a 

civil penalty that is more difficult to meet than the prevailing 

standard in most criminal cases. Moreover, even if BATFE is able 

to meet this extraordinary new burden of proof to impose minimal 

fines and temporary suspensions, these sanctions would generally 

be delayed for years while BATFE conducted new administrative 

review procedures different from those that apply to other regulated industries, and that strongly favor lawbreakers. 

The negative impact that these provisions will undoubtedly have 

on local municipalities and the efforts of various law enforcement 

officials has produced a widespread coalition of groups that have 

spoken out in opposition to this measure. Specific groups or individuals expressing concerns with the legislation include: The International Association of Chiefs of Police; Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of the State of California; Stephen Higgins, Former Director of 

the ATF; Rex Davis, Former Director of the ATF; Joseph J. Vince, 

Jr., Former Chief of ATF’s Crime Gun Analysis Branch; William 

Vizzard, Former ATF Special Agent in Charge; Gerald Nunziato, 

Former ATF Special Agent in Charge; Julius Wachtel, Former ATF 

Resident Agent in Charge; Frank Wandell, Former ATF Special 

Agent & District Senior Operations Officer; Gerald C. Benedict, 

Former ATF Special Agent in Charge; Michael R. Bloomberg, 

Mayor of New York; Thomas M. Menino, Mayor of Boston; Gregory 

J. Nickels, Mayor of Seattle; Tom Barrett, Mayor of Milwaukee; the 

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and its affiliate, the Brady 

Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; the Violence Policy Center; the 

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; and Mayors Against Illegal Guns. 

It is for these reasons, and those that follow, that we respectfully 

dissent. 

I. H.R. 5092 OFFERS GREATER PROTECTIONS TO THOSE CORRUPT

GUN DEALERS THAT ROUTINELY VIOLATE CURRENT LAW

Federal law currently places severe restraints on BATFE’s ability 

to revoke licenses from gun dealers who violate federal law. Despite the fact that BATFE inspections often reveal scores of violaVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:58 Sep 23, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00213 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR672.XXX HR672
214 

tions of law by gun dealers, the revocation of a dealer’s federal firearms license is a rare event. 

In fiscal year 2003, for example, BATFE completed 1,812 inspections that uncovered regulatory violations, with an average of over 

80 violations per dealer. Despite this large number of dealers with 

multiple violations, BATFE issued only 54 notices of license revocation that year. In part, this is due to the overly burdensome requirement that BATFE prove that a dealer ‘‘willfully’’ violated the 

law, requiring proof that the dealer not only broke the law but also 

knew that his or her conduct was unlawful. This requirement that 

a dealer actually know that he is breaking the law is extremely 

rare even in criminal cases, let alone administrative agency actions. Because of this standard, BATFE generally requires repeated 

violations of the law over many years before it attempts to revoke 

a license. 

The following examples show the severe limits on BATFE’s current power to crack down on rogue gun dealers. As explained 

below, H.R. 5092 makes a bad situation worse by giving greater 

protection to gun dealers who violate the law. 

BULL’S EYE SHOOTER SUPPLY, TACOMA, WASHINGTON

In fall 2002, John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo engaged in a series of deadly sniper shootings in the Washington, DC 

area using a Bushmaster XM–15 semi-automatic assault rifle. Muhammad and Malvo obtained the Bushmaster assault rifle from 

gun dealer Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply, even though both snipers 

were prohibited from buying guns under federal law. Malvo, the 

seventeen-year-old sniper, told authorities that he simply walked 

out of the shop with the gun, a scenario suggesting a shameful absence of security measures to prevent theft. The shop had no record 

that the gun was sold or lost and had never reported it missing. 

BATFE audits showed that a total of 238 guns, including the snipers’ assault rifle, had ‘‘disappeared’’ from Bull’s Eye in just three 

years and over 50 of its guns had been traced to crimes between 

1997 and 2001. 

Based on Bull’s Eye’s failure to account for scores of guns, in 

2003, BATFE moved to revoke the federal firearms license held by 

Bull’s Eye’s owner, Brian Borgelt. Borgelt responded by appealing 

the revocation, alleging that BATFE had not shown that Bull’s Eye 

committed ‘‘willful’’ violations. Borgelt also transferred operations 

of the shop to a friend, while continuing to manage an upstairs 

shooting range. As of 2006, the store remains open and Borgelt continues to appeal his license revocation in federal court. Under current law, BATFE has already faced substantial hurdles in attempting to revoke Borgelt’s federal firearms license. 

TRADER SPORTS, SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA

Trader Sports has sold at least 337 guns traced to crime, including guns involved in at least 27 homicides, 26 assaults, 2 robberies, 

and 282 additional gun crimes. Trader Sports has also sold at least 

3,091 handguns in ‘‘multiple sales’’—where more than one handgun 

is sold to a single buyer within five working days, a recognized indicator of possible gun trafficking. In 2003, BATFE inspected Trader Sports’ records and found that an astonishing 7,477 firearms 

215 

were missing from the store with no record of sale. After months 

of searching for records of its lost firearms, Trader Sports still 

could not account for more then 2,000 of its guns. 

Based on repeated violations of federal law relating to these 

missing guns, BATFE moved to revoke the federal firearms license 

of Trader Sports’ owner, Anthony Cucchiara, in 2004. However, 

Cucchiara has continued to operate up until this year by challenging BATFE’s revocation attempt in court. 

VALLEY GUN, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

Sanford M. Abrams is a National Rifle Association Board Member and has owned Valley Gun of Baltimore since 1996. Valley Gun 

sold 483 firearms traced to crimes from 2000 to 2003, ranking it 

in the top 40 of the highest crime gun dealers nationwide. 

Less than a year after Abrams began operating the store, BATFE 

conducted an inspection and found numerous violations of federal 

law, including 45 firearms that were listed in his inventory books 

but were ‘‘missing’’ from the store. BATFE re-inspected his store in 

1999, 2000, and 2001. Each time BATFE found more violations of 

federal law, and each time Abrams promised to reform his practices 

and correct his violations. 

In 2003, BATFE again inspected Valley Gun, this time finding 

massive violations of federal law, including 422 firearms that were 

‘‘missing’’ from his store with no record of sale. He also failed to 

record the disposition of nearly all of the guns that he repaired, recording only 19 out of 475 firearms. Abrams had numerous other 

violations, including failing to properly fill out gun purchase forms 

and failing to complete gun disposition records. Based on these 

hundreds of violations of federal law, BATFE moved to revoke 

Abrams’ license in 2004. Abrams appealed the revocation and his 

appeal was denied, however, federal law allowed him to continue 

operating despite the 2004 revocation determination. Abrams now 

faces revocation, although he has again appealed and asked that 

the revocation be delayed while he continues his appeals. Under 

current law, BATFE has already faced substantial hurdles in attempting to revoke Valley Gun’s federal firearms license. 

II. H.R. 5092 MAKES IT HARDER TO PROSECUTE OR SANCTION CORRUPT GUN DEALERS BY ELEVATING BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIREMENTS

H.R. 5092 redefines the burden of proof for violations of federal 

gun laws to make it virtually impossible to prosecute, sanction or 

revoke the licenses of corrupt gun dealers and to prosecute all 

other gun law offenders, including gun traffickers and violent 

criminals. Current law already imposes a requirement that BATFE 

prove that violations of federal gun laws are ‘‘willful,’’ an incredibly 

high burden which has greatly hindered BATFE’s ability to enforce 

gun laws and revoke gun dealer licenses. H.R. 5092 redefines the 

‘‘willful’’ standard of proof for gun law violations to make it even 

more difficult to prove a violation of the law. 

Since enactment of the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act in 1986, 

the BATFE has relied upon a standard of willfulness before pursuing a possible violation of a federal gun law. The Supreme Court 

216 

has held that ‘‘willfully’’ requires proof that a defendant ‘‘acted 

with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.’’ Bryan v. U.S., 524 

U.S. 184, 193 (1998). BATFE need not also show that the defendant acted with the intent to break the law. H.R. 5092 changes current law, to require proof that a dealer not only knew the specific 

law he or she was violating but also a showing of intentional disregard of that specific legal duty. This is a very dangerous provision that is contrary to Supreme Court precedent and would cripple 

BATFE’s ability to enforce federal gun laws. 

H.R. 5092’s requirement that BATFE prove a lawbreaker’s mental state would present a nearly insurmountable burden. The 

courts have generally rejected this interpretation of the meaning of 

‘‘willful,’’ explaining that the willful standard ‘‘does not require [a 

person] to set out purposely to violate the Act,’’ because if this was 

required, any remedy for a willful violation ‘‘would be a rare remedy indeed.’’ Tijerina v. Walters, 821 F.2d 789, 799 (D.C. Cir. 1987). 

The requirement of intent to violate the law is exceedingly uncommon and is generally limited only to criminal prosecutions of complex and arcane tax laws. See Cheek v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192, 199 

(1991). There is no reason to extend this unique burden of proof to 

protect felons who illegally acquire firearms or gun dealers who 

violate federal laws regulating firearms sales. 

The Supreme Court in Bryan noted that the Firearm Owners’ 

Protection Act, which imposed the willfulness standard for gun law 

violations in 1986, ‘‘was enacted to protect law-abiding citizens who 

might inadvertently violate the law.’’ Id. at 195 n.23. BATFE need 

not prove that a dealer had the ‘‘intent to act in violation of a 

known legal duty,’’ as H.R. 5092 would now mandate. 

III. H.R. 5092 ESTABLISHES TWO NEW CLASSIFICATIONS OF VIOLA- TIONS AND UNWISELY LIMITS BATFE’S ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS

ACCORDING TO EACH TYPE OF VIOLATION

The bill creates new classifications of federal gun laws as serious 

and minor, and allows license revocation only for so-called ‘‘serious,’’ willful violations. ‘‘Serious’’ violations, as defined by H.R. 

5092, would be rare and exclude many violations that are in fact 

extremely serious and dangerous, such as when a gun dealer has 

numerous weapons ‘‘lost’’ from its inventory with no record of sale. 

Even so-called minor violations would be nearly impossible to 

prove, as these also would require a willful violation. For example, 

BATFE occasionally revokes the licenses of corrupt dealers who fail 

to maintain records for hundreds or thousands of firearms. It 

would be nearly impossible for BATFE to prove that the failure to 

maintain records was deliberate, purposeful and done with the specific intent to break the law, as would be required to prove both 

serious and so-called minor violations under H.R. 5092. 

The bill defines a violation to be ‘‘of a serious nature’’ only if it 

is willful, which is newly defined to require specific intent to break 

the law, see H.R. 5092 § 4, and the violation must also meet one 

of three definitions: 

(1) A dealer specifically intends to break the law and such a violation ‘‘results in or could have resulted in the transfer of a firearm 

or ammunition to a person prohibited from possessing or receiving 

the firearm or ammunition under this chapter.’’ Proposed 18 U.S.C. 

217 

§ 923(e)(1)(C)(i). This would be extremely difficult for BATFE to 

prove, as most corrupt gun dealers do not keep records that prove 

that a firearm was intentionally transferred to a prohibited buyer. 

Instead, such dealers have been cited for ‘‘losing’’ records for hundreds or thousands of guns. Because it is the transfer of a firearm, 

and not the act of losing a record, that would cause a firearm to 

be transferred to a prohibited purchaser, corrupt dealers could 

evade sanction under this section by ‘‘losing’’ or failing to keep 

records proving such a violation. 

(2) A dealer specifically intends to break the law and the violation ‘‘obstructs or could have obstructed a bona fide civil or criminal investigation or prosecution.’’ Proposed 18 U.S.C. 

§ 923(e)(1)(C)(ii). This standard would be very difficult to meet, because it would require proof of intent to violate the law in addition 

to proof that the willful violation could have obstructed an ongoing 

investigation. As described above, it would be incredibly difficult to 

prove that when a dealer violated the law it actually did so with 

a specific intent to break the law. In addition, while federal gun 

law violations are serious because they frequently result in scores 

of guns ‘‘disappearing’’ from gun dealer’s shops, it is not the norm 

that law enforcement is able to link missing firearms to a specific 

investigation or prosecution, so a dealer’s repeated, dangerous violations would nonetheless be treated as minor. 

(3) A dealer specifically intends to break the law and the violation ‘‘prevents or could have prevented a licensee from complying 

with subsection (g)(7).’’ Proposed 18 U.S.C. § 923(e)(1)(C)(iii). This 

relates to the rare case where a violation would prevent a dealer 

from responding to an BATFE request within 24 hours. Subsection 

(g)(7) only requires a dealer to provide information actually contained in its records—it does not address the problem of a dealer 

failing to keep proper records. 

Under H.R. 5092, BATFE would likely not be able to prove that 

most violations of federal gun laws meet the new definition of ‘‘willful’’ misconduct, as required for both serious and so-called minor 

violations. Furthermore, most serious violations of federal law 

would not meet the stringent test for a ‘‘serious’’ violation under 

H.R. 5092. 

A. THE INHERENT PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPOSING FINES

UNDER THIS NEW TWO-TIER SYSTEM

For so-called minor violations, H.R. 5095 proposes to establish 

fines of no more than $1,000 per violation, and fines of no more 

than $5,000 for all violations ‘‘arising from a single inspection or 

examination.’’ Proposed 18 U.S.C. § 923(e)(1)(A)(i)(I). For ‘‘serious’’ 

violations, the fines are no more than $2,500 per violation and no 

more than $15,000 for violations ‘‘arising from a single inspection 

or examination.’’ Proposed 18 U.S.C. § 923(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I). Because all 

fines first require proof of a willful violation, BATFE could not impose any fines unless it showed a deliberate intent to violate the 

law, making it unlikely in most cases that BATFE could impose 

any fines at all. 

These fines for willful violations of federal gun laws are also extremely low. For example, the Consumer Product Safety Commission can impose fines on sellers of most unsafe consumer products 

218 

of $8,000 per violation, up to $1,825,000 for a related series of violations. See 15 U.S.C. § 2068; 69 Fed. Reg. 68884 (Nov. 2004). The 

Environmental Protection Agency can impose fines of between 

$2,500 and $25,000 per day for Clean Water Act violations that are 

merely negligent. Knowing violations are from $5,000 to $50,000 

per day. See 33 U.S.C. § 1318(c). Similarly, the Federal Communications Commission may impose fines for indecency of $32,500 

for each violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to 

$325,000 for continuing violations, for broadcast stations, and 

$130,000 per violation, up to $1,325,000 for continuing violations, 

for common carriers. See 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(1). 

Another problem with this fine structure is that it limits fines for 

violations arising from a single inspection or examination. For example, if BATFE conducted an audit and found 1,000 missing firearms, the maximum fine could be only $5,000. These fines reward 

the worst offenders by capping fines no matter how many related 

violations have occurred. A gun dealer with six ‘‘serious’’ violations 

would have the same maximum fine as a gun dealer with 600 or 

even 6,000 ‘‘serious’’ related violations—only $15,000. 

Because of BATFE’s extremely limited resources, it rarely conducts inspections. When it does finally conduct an inspection, it 

may find hundreds or thousands of violations. But, under H.R. 

5092, all violations found in the same audit would be grouped together, with a maximum fine of only $15,000 for all so-called serious violations uncovered at the audit. For example, BATFE recently revoked the license of Trader Sports, a notorious California 

gun dealer. At an inspection, BATFE found 7,477 firearms unaccounted for in inventory and dozens of other willful violations of 

federal law. If these thousands of violations were found in the same 

inspection, the maximum fine would be $15,000, or an average fine 

of only a few dollars per violation, so low as to be meaningless. 

Proposed section 18 U.S.C. § 923 (e)(1)(b)(ii) also imposes a limit 

that the ‘‘violation of a provision of this chapter with respect to 2 

or more firearms during a single transaction shall be considered a 

single violation of the provision.’’ If anything, multiple firearms 

being illegally sold are more serious, as this is a likely indicator of 

gun trafficking. This should result in a higher penalty, not a lower 

one. 

B. THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH PURSUING LICENSE SUSPENSION

UNDER THIS NEW SYSTEM

The bill allows license suspension of up to 30 days for so-called 

minor willful violations and up to 90 days for ‘‘serious’’ willful violations. H.R. 5092 § 2. The bill’s new definition of willful would require proof of a deliberate intent to violate the law, making it unlikely that BATFE could meet this difficult burden to suspend licenses in most cases. Moreover, suspensions could only be imposed 

for so-called minor violations if the gun dealer had violated federal 

gun laws on two prior occasions. 

Even if BATFE could overcome the hurdle of meeting the bill’s 

new definition of willful violations, this suspension authority is extremely weak even compared to BATFE’s current, limited power to 

suspend firearms licenses. In 2005, Congress gave BATFE the 

power to suspend firearms licenses for up to six months if a liVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:58 Sep 23, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00218 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR672.XXX HR672
219 

censee sells a handgun without providing a secure gun storage or 

safety device. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(z), 924(p). Yet under H.R. 5092, 

even so-called serious violations could result in only a 90–day suspension. Congress should give BATFE the power to suspend licenses for up to 6 months for all violations of federal firearms laws. 

Moreover, because BATFE has extremely limited resources and 

rarely inspects gun dealers, it would take many years before 

BATFE could prove three separate occasions in which a dealer violates the law. If BATFE did finally find three separate periods of 

violations, it would then have to begin the license suspension process, which could take many additional years to complete. In essence, BATFE could spend half a decade or more attempting to 

temporarily suspend a license for up to 30 days, a monumental effort that would hardly be worth BATFE’s limited resources. 

Instead of this extremely weak suspension authority, Congress 

should enact legislation that gives BATFE the power to temporarily suspend licenses for up to 6 months when a gun dealer has 

violated federal law. H.R. 5092 imposes severe limitations on license suspension that would require an extraordinarily heightened 

burden of proof to impose a suspension and allows for years of administrative review and litigation before a temporary suspension 

could be imposed. 

C. PURSUING LICENSE REVOCATION UNDER THE NEW SYSTEM

As described above, H.R. 5092 would make it virtually impossible 

to revoke a gun dealer’s license even in cases of repeated, egregious 

violations of federal gun laws. It would be nearly impossible for 

BATFE to prove that most violations of federal law, such as the 

violations of Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply, Trader Sports, and Valley 

Gun in the examples above, were committed with the specific and 

purposeful intent to break the law. 

Moreover, most willful violations are defined under H.R. 5092 as 

violations that are ‘‘not of a serious nature.’’ H.R. 5092 allows revocation only for ‘‘serious’’ violations, so revocation would not be allowed in so-called minor cases. Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply, Trader 

Sports, and Valley Gun ‘‘lost’’ hundreds of firearms from their inventory and they repeatedly failed to keep proper records. After 

years of egregious violations, BATFE was able to show willful misconduct under current law because of these dealers’ pattern of violations over many years. Yet, under H.R. 5092, their violations 

likely would not have resulted in any sanction, as BATFE could not 

have proved, under the new definition of ‘‘willful,’’ that the dealers 

not only repeatedly violated the law but also specifically intended 

to break the law. Even if BATFE overcame this significant hurdle 

of proving intentional violations, in order to revoke these dealers’ 

licenses BATFE would have to overcome yet another extraordinary 

burden of proving that these illegal acts met the narrow definition 

in H.R. 5092 for so-called serious violations. 

If BATFE were somehow able to show that these dealers intended to break the law, an outcome which courts recognize ‘‘would 

be a rare [one] indeed,’’ Tijerina, 821 F.2d at 799, BATFE likely 

still could not have met the narrow definition of a ‘‘serious’’ willful 

violation required to revoke a license. Under H.R. 5092, a ‘‘serious’’ 

willful violation would require a specific intent to break the law 

220 

and proof that the violation: (1) ‘‘results in or could have resulted 

in the transfer of a firearm or ammunition to a person prohibited 

from possessing or receiving the firearm or ammunition,’’ (2) ‘‘obstructs or could have obstructed a bona fide civil or criminal investigation or prosecution,’’ or (3) ‘‘prevents or could have prevented 

a licensee from complying with subsection (g)(7) [requiring dealer 

to provide its records to BATFE].’’ H.R. 5092 § 2. The dealers described above apparently ‘‘lost’’ records for hundreds of firearms, although BATFE likely could not show that the dealers deliberately 

‘‘lost’’ these records with the specific intent to break the law. 

BATFE also likely could not show that the failure to keep records 

could have caused a gun transfer to a prohibited buyer, as the act 

of transferring a gun, rather than ‘‘losing’’ a record, would result 

in the illegal transfer. Likewise, because it is unusual for law enforcement to link missing guns to a specific investigation or prosecution, a dealer’s violation rarely would be a willful violation that 

also could have obstructed a specific investigation. Finally, 18 

U.S.C. § 923(g)(7) merely requires dealers to provide records in 

their possession, and so could not be used against dealers who had 

‘‘lost’’ gun records. 

IV. H.R. 5092 PROPOSES TO UNDULY DELAY BATFE’S ABILITY TO

IMPOSE CIVIL PENALTIES REGARDLESS OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF

THE UNDERLYING VIOLATION

H.R. 5092 would also require BATFE automatically to stay (postpone) a fine, suspension or revocation pending completion of an administrative hearing, no matter how egregious the violation. Proposed section (e)(2)(C). This standard strongly favors the alleged violator. Instead, the burden should be on the alleged violator to 

prove a likelihood of success on its challenge, as is the standard for 

stays generally. See Cabo Distribution Co., Inc. v. Brady, 821 

F.Supp. 582, 594–95 (N.D.Cal. 1992) (in appeal of BATFE’s revocation of liquor labeling authority, a plaintiff seeking a stay must 

prove a ‘‘likelihood that plaintiff will prevail on the merits and the 

possible harm to the parties from granting or denying the injunctive relief’’); see also Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 649 (2004) 

(even in a case seeking to stay the death penalty, courts require 

proof that a defendant has a likelihood of success on the merits). 

The bill further requires BATFE automatically to stay a fine, 

suspension or revocation ‘‘until there has been a final, nonreviewable judgment with respect to the determination involved.’’ Proposed section (e)(3)(D). Again, this standard strongly favors the alleged violator, allowing him to continue operating, possibly for 

years, even if an administrative hearing determines that the violation warrants severe penalties. It encourages litigation, as prolonged litigation allows violators to continue operating and avoid 

all penalties. 

These provisions make license suspension and fines essentially 

meaningless, because such a temporary suspension or small fine 

would automatically be delayed for years if a licensee asked for a 

mandatory stay. 

221 

V. H.R. 5092 PROPOSES TO ALLOW FIREARM DEALERS TO CONTINUE

OPERATING (FOR A MAXIMUM OF 60 DAYS) EVEN AFTER THEIR LICENSE HAS BEEN REVOKED

Section 9 of the bill would allow FFLs who violate federal gun 

laws to operate and earn a profit by continuing to sell guns even 

after they have had their license revoked for willful violations of 

federal gun laws or to continue operating under an expired license, 

to liquidate their inventory. This makes a mockery of license revocation by essentially allowing FFLs to evade revocation and continue operating even though they committed federal crimes, and allows FFLs to temporarily avoid renewing licenses as required by 

federal law to continue selling guns. BATFE should have the discretion to allow or disallow a short additional time to liquidate inventory depending on the severity of the violations and likelihood 

of continuing violations. 

VI. H.R. 5092 ELIMINATES BATFE’S ABILITY TO PURSUE CIVIL

PENALTIES, SUBSEQUENT TO A FAILED CRIMINAL PROCEEDING

The bill greatly discourages BATFE from prosecuting criminal 

gun dealers who violate federal gun laws. Proposed section (f)(4) requires that if BATFE brings criminal charges against an FFL and 

the FFL is acquitted, this voids civil fines and penalties. Since the 

burden of proof on criminal charges is greater than in civil cases, 

a criminal case should not void civil penalties that have been proven under a civil standard. The bill also prohibits BATFE from imposing fines, suspension or revocation more than one year after an 

indictment, even if the FFL is found guilty. Proposed section (f)(5). 

There is no reason why BATFE should be prohibited from imposing 

civil penalties on an FFL convicted of violating federal gun laws 

simply because resolution of the criminal case took more than one 

year. 

VII. H.R. 5092 UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATES THE CURRENT

INSPECTION PROCESS

This section redefines Section 922(m) of title 18 to make it more 

difficult to sanction dealers who fail to keep proper records of their 

firearms and allows dealers to keep records in disarray, changing 

the requirement from ‘‘properly maintain[ing]’’ records to simply 

‘‘retain[ing] custody of’’ records. If dealers are not required to properly maintain records, it makes it much more difficult for BATFE 

to determine if firearms are missing or if the dealer is failing to 

keep proper records of firearm transactions. This provision would 

allow dealers to attempt to hide missing firearms by maintaining 

records in disarray, but still in their ‘‘custody.’’ For example, a 

dealer who had been in business for 50 years could simply throw 

all of its files in a back room, maintaining ‘‘custody’’ of them but 

making it very difficult for BATFE to audit the dealer’s records to 

discover violations. 

222 

DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS

1. Amendment Offered by Rep. Anthony Weiner (#1) 

Description of amendment: The Weiner amendment sought to 

strike section 8 from the scope of the underlying bill. As currently 

drafted, section 8 proposes to allow all firearms dealers to continue 

operating (for a maximum of 60 days) for purposes of liquidating 

inventories subsequent to a license revocation proceeding. 

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 4 to 18. Ayes: Representatives Conyers, Weiner, Schiff, and Wasserman Schultz. 

Nays: Representatives Coble, Smith, Chabot, Jenkins, Cannon, Inglis, Hostettler, Keller, Forbes, King, Feeney, Franks, Gohmert, 

Boucher, Scott, Sensenbrenner, Bachus, and Lungren. 

2. Amendment Offered by Rep. Anthony Weiner (#2) 

Description of amendment: The Weiner amendment sought to 

amend the provisions of the underlying bill that currently (and 

automatically) void any and all ongoing civil proceedings against a 

particular dealer, if he or she is first acquitted on similar criminal 

proceedings. 

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 9 to 16. Ayes: Representatives Conyers, Scott, Waters, Wexler, Weiner, Schiff, Van 

Hollen, Wasserman Schultz, and Meehan. Nays: Representatives 

Coble, Smith, Chabot, Jenkins, Cannon, Bachus, Inglis, Keller, 

Forbes, King, Franks, Gohmert, Boucher, Sensenbrenner, Lungren, 

and Feeney. 

3. Amendment Offered by Rep. Anthony Weiner (#3) 

Description of amendment: The Weiner amendment sought to 

eliminate the bill’s current proposed system of fines, and replace it 

with a maximum fine of up to $10,000 for each gun law violation. 

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 8 to 20. Ayes: Representatives Conyers, Jackson Lee, Waters, Wexler, Van Hollen, 

Wasserman Schultz, Schiff, and Weiner. Nays: Representatives 

Coble, Smith, Chabot, Jenkins, Cannon, Bachus, Inglis, Keller, 

Issa, Forbes, King, Franks, Gohmert, Boucher, Scott, Sensenbrenner, Lungren, Flake, Feeney, and Hostettler. 

4. Amendment Offered by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee 

Description of amendment: The Jackson Lee amendment sought 

to eliminate section 4, in its entirety, from the scope of the underlying bill. 

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 9 to 17. Ayes: Representatives Conyers, Scott, Jackson Lee, Waters, Wexler, Weiner, 

Schiff, Van Hollen, and Wasserman Schultz. Nays: Representatives 

Coble, Smith, Chabot, Jenkins, Cannon, Inglis, Hostettler, Issa, 

Flake, Forbes, King, Feeney, Franks, Gohmert, Boucher, Sensenbrenner, and Lungren. 

5. Amendment Offered by Rep. Anthony Weiner (#4) 

Description of amendment: Rep. Weiner offered a substitute 

amendment to the pending Coble amendment. The second degree 

substitute proposed to make several changes to the text of the underlying bill. For example, rather than capping fines at a maximum 

223 

of $15,000, under the Weiner amendment the BATFE could impose 

fines of not more than $10,000 per violation for knowing violations 

of federal law, after notice and a hearing. Additionally, rather than 

allowing license suspension only for certain rare violations or only 

after years of violations, under the Weiner amendment the BATFE 

could suspend a license for up to 6 months if a gun dealer is indicted for knowingly violating federal law or knowingly violates 

federal law, after notice and a hearing. 

The amendment was defeated by a vote of 10 to 16. Ayes: Representatives Conyers, Scott, Jackson Lee, Waters, Meehan, Wexler, 

Weiner, Schiff, Van Hollen, and Wasserman Schultz. Nays: Representatives Smith, Chabot, Jenkins, Cannon, Inglis, Hostettler, 

Issa, Flake, Forbes, Feeney, Franks, Gohmert, Boucher, Sensenbrenner, Coble and Lungren. 

JOHN CONYERS, Jr. 

MAXINE WATERS. 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT. 

ANTHONY D. WEINER. LINDA T. SANCHEZ. 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE. MARTIN T. MEEHAN. ROBERT WEXLER. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN. 

Æ