Gun Control: FY2017 Appropriations for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and Other Initiatives
Released: 2017-08-07T00:00:00

Introduction

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is the lead federal law enforcement agency charged with administering and enforcing federal laws related to firearms and explosives commerce. ATF is also responsible for investigating arson cases with a federal nexus, and criminal cases involving the diversion of alcohol and tobacco from legal channels of commerce. As an agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ), ATF is funded through an annual appropriation in the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) Appropriations Act.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) administers the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Through this system, the FBI facilitates an electronic background check process to determine the firearms eligibility of unlicensed, private persons seeking to acquire firearms from federally licensed gun dealers, or firearms licenses or permits from state or local authorities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collects and publishes national mortality and morbidity data, including firearms-related death and injuries; however, grants issued by CDC for gun violence research in the past have proven controversial.

This report provides coverage of congressional action on President Barack Obama's FY2017 budget request for his gun safety initiative. This coverage includes analysis of the ATF Congressional Budget Submission , Fiscal Year 2017 , including discussion of selected data trends that could affect ATF workloads during FY2017. One of those data trends, for example, is the number and type of federally licensed gun dealers, manufacturers, and importers, whom ATF monitors periodically for compliance with federal and state law. Another data trend is the significant growth in newly manufactured and imported firearms introduced into the civilian gun stock annually. This data trend suggests that ATF and the FBI could see increased demands on their resources in FY2017. A third data trend is annual change in firearms-related violent crime: criminal homicides, armed robberies, and aggravated assaults. This report also includes a brief discussion of a controversial annual appropriations limitation that Congress has placed on CDC for 20 years that prohibits the use of appropriated funding to "advocate or promote gun control." The report concludes with an Appendix that describes 15 other gun control-related appropriations limitations that Congress has placed on the ATF, FBI, and the Department of State.

Overview of the FY2017 Appropriations Cycle for Gun Safety

As shown in Table 1 , for FY2016, Congress appropriated ATF $1.24 billion in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ). For FY2017, the Obama Administration requested $1.306 billion for ATF.

House- and Senate-Reported FY2017 CJS Appropriations Bills

On April 21, 2016, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported a bill ( S. 2837 ; S.Rept. 114-239 ) that would have provided ATF with $1.259 billion for FY2017. This amount was $18.6 million above the FY2016 appropriation and $47.5 million below the request.

On June 7, 2016, the House Committee on Appropriations reported a bill ( H.R. 5393 ) that would have provided ATF with $1.258 billion for FY2017. This amount was $17.8 million above the FY2016 appropriation and $48.3 million below the request.

Both the Senate and House bills would have provided the FBI with a $35 million increase to address firearms-related background checks. The Senate bill would have provided $75 million, and the House bill $73 million, to improved information sharing on persons prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms. As noted below, the Obama Administration requested $50 million for those purposes. Neither bill would have provided a requested $10 million for gun violence research.

FY2017 Continuing Resolutions

On September 29, 2016, President Obama signed into law a Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 114-203 ), which funded most of the federal government through December 9, 2016, at nearly the same levels as appropriated for FY2016. For those activities and projects funded under P.L. 114-203 , the act provided an across-the-board decrease of 0.496% for the period October 1, 2016, through December 9, 2016.

On December 10, 2016, President Obama signed into law a Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 114-254 ), which funded most of the federal government through April 28, 2017, at nearly the same levels as appropriated for FY2017. For those activities and projects funded under P.L. 114-154 , the act provided an across-the-board decrease of 0.1901% for the period December 10, 2016, through April 28, 2017.

On April 28, 2017, President Donald Trump signed a further continuing appropriations act ( P.L. 115-30 ), which extended the previous continuing resolution through May 5, 2017, until Congress passed full-year appropriations in P.L. 115-31 .

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ), Congress appropriated $1.259 billion for ATF, about $47 million less than the Obama Administration's budget request. Like the FY2017 continuing resolutions described above, P.L. 115-31 extended the long-standing gun control limitations on ATF, CDC, HHS, and the Departments of Labor and Education discussed above through that date, as well as those described in the Appendix to this report.

FY2017 ATF and Gun Violence Appropriations Request

In its Congressional Budget Submission, Fiscal Year 201 7 , the Obama Administration proposed an appropriation of $1.306 billion for ATF. If appropriated, this amount would have been $66.1 million above the FY2016 appropriation. This amount included $11.8 million and 73 full-time equivalents in technical and base adjustments to anticipate inflation and other variable costs. It also included $54.3 million, 155 full-time equivalents, and 230 permanent positions in budget enhancements. As part of President Barack Obama's gun safety initiative, these budget enhancements included

$35.6 million for ATF to hire 80 additional special agents and 120 industry operations investigators; $4.0 million (including 8 positions) to upgrade the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN) and ballistic imaging hardware and software; $5.7 million and 22 positions to help process federal firearms and explosives licenses and National Firearms Act (NFA) applications, and expand the use of firearms trace data by ATF and other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies; and $9.0 million to integrate ATF's disparate case management systems into a Next Generation Case Management system.

The FY2017 budget request also called for the repeal of two appropriations limitations that have prevented ATF from requiring federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to inventory their gun stocks prior to annual inspections and changing an administrative definition of "curios and relics."

In addition, the President Obama's gun safety initiative included

$35.0 million for the FBI to address an increase in firearms background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; $50.0 million for the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP); $5.0 million for NICS Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP); and $10.0 million for gun violence research.

NICS was established by the FBI in November 1998 to facilitate firearms background checks. Through both NCHIP and NARIP, the DOJ Office of Justice Programs provides grants to states, tribes, and territories to improve NICS accessibility to records on persons prohibited from acquiring firearms under federal or state law.

ATF Funding and Staffing for Enforcement Operations and Support Services

Table 2 shows breakouts for the ATF FY2016 enacted budget, FY2017 base budget (current services), and FY2017 request by two budget decision units. Those decision units include "law enforcement operations (LEO)" and "investigative support services (ISS)." These two budget decision units include the amounts of resources and staff allocated to the agency's enforcement and regulatory operations, respectively. ATF adopted this budget decision unit structure during the FY2015 budget request and appropriations cycle.

As shown in Table 2 , for FY2016, ATF reported that it had allocated $1.033 billion (83.3%) of its $1.240 billion appropriation under its "law enforcement operations" budget decision unit. ATF proposed allocating a similar percentage (83.7%) for FY2017 for this budget decision unit. This means that 16.7% of ATF appropriated funding was to be allocated for its other budget decision unit, "investigative support services," which funds other mission-critical activities, including FFL qualification and compliance inspections, administrative actions, and firearms traces, as well as other firearms and explosives regulatory efforts.

Table 2 and Table 3 show that the anticipated FY2016 FTE level funded through appropriations was 5,028 and the requested FY2017 FTE level was 5,216, or a net increase of 188 FTEs. Table 2 and Table 3 also show the permanent positions associated with the funded FTE. For FY2017, 115 FTE were associated with the requested additional 230 permanent positions and $54.3 million for FY2017. The other requested 73 FTE and $11.8 million were for "technical and base adjustments." These amounts are not associated with any additional permanent positions; rather, they are being requested for a "staffing restoration." The "technical and base adjustments" added to the FY2016 enacted appropriation essentially represent the estimated level of resources that ATF projected it would need for the then-upcoming fiscal year (FY2017) to provide the same level of services that it anticipated providing during the then-current fiscal year (FY2016).

Table 4 shows ATF permanent positions by selected Office of Personnel Management (OPM) job series for FY2012-FY2016, for which Congress appropriated funding, and the Administration's FY2017 request. Special Agents (SAs, or criminal investigators—OPM job series 1811) are authorized to make arrests and carry firearms. SAs accounted for nearly half of the permanent positions under the FY2017 request.

Industry Operations Investigators (IOIs—OPM job series 1801), by comparison, are not authorized to make arrests or carry firearms. Instead, IOIs monitor federally licensed firearms and explosives dealers, manufacturers, and importers for their compliance with federal law. IOIs accounted for 17.9% of the permanent positions under the FY2016 request. Besides a FY2013 reduction, the level of funded positions for these two job series discussed above has not changed. According to ATF, the FY2013 reduction in permanent positions was due to sequestration and the three-year DOJ hiring freeze. The level of funded positions for Intelligence Analysts (OPM job series 132) and Attorneys (OPM job series 905) has also remained level, but those job series did not see an FY2013 reduction. Nor did "other" positions see an FY2013 reduction. The requested 230 additional positions for FY2017 included 80 Special Agents, 120 Industry Operations Investigators, and 30 "other" positions.

Curios and Relics, Dealer Inventories, and Appropriations Limitations

For FY2017, the Obama Administration requested the elimination of two long-standing provisos, included previously in the ATF salaries and expenses appropriations language, that prohibit the use of appropriations by ATF to

alter the regulatory definition of "curios and relics," and require federally licensed gun dealers to conduct physical inventories.

Under the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 ( P.L. 113-6 ), Congress included "words of futurity" ("in the current fiscal year and any fiscal year thereafter") that appear to be intended to make those provisos permanent law.

In the Appendix to this report, there is a comprehensive list of gun control-related spending limitations that Congress has placed on ATF. Like the limitations described above, some, but not all, of these provisos no longer appear in the ATF salaries and expenses appropriations language. This is because Congress included words of futurity in these provisos in either FY2012 or FY2013, after gun control advocacy groups called for their elimination. These provisos were viewed by some as unduly constraining ATF efforts to monitor firearms-related commerce. Neither the Senate- nor House-reported FY2017 CJS Appropriation bills include language to alter or overturn these provisions. Congress did not accept the Obama Administration's request to repeal these limitations in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ).

Selected Data Trends That Could Have Affected ATF Workloads

Below is discussion of selected, year-to-year data trends that could have affected and may continue to affect ATF workloads, such as the number and type of federal firearms licensees, growth in the civilian gun stock, and firearms-related violent crime rates.

ATF Firearms Licensing of Gun Dealers, Manufacturers, and Importers

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended, persons who wish to be "engaged in the business" of manufacturing, importing, or selling firearms must be licensed by ATF. Persons who are issued those licenses are known as "Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs)." As summarized by ATF in January 2016 guidance:

A person engaged in the business of dealing in firearms is a person who "devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms."

Conducting business "with the principal objective of livelihood and profit" means that "the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection."

Consistent with this approach, federal law explicitly exempts persons "who make occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms."

Under current law, FFLs may ship, transport, and receive firearms that have moved in interstate and foreign commerce. In nearly all cases, unlicensed persons must engage the services of an FFL to facilitate interstate firearms transfers to another unlicensed person.

ATF has maintained that the agency cannot meet its goal of inspecting every FFL for compliance on a three-year cycle. The Obama Administration, moreover, maintained that the ATF had been hamstrung by limitations appended to appropriations legislation, listed in the Appendix to this report; an increase in the number of FFLs; and a surge in firearms-related commerce. For FY2014, for example, ATF reported that it could conduct only 10,000 FFL compliance inspections, a 24% decrease from the previous year, covering 7% of the FFL population. For FY2015, ATF reported that it completed approximately 8,700 FFL compliance inspections, a 13% decrease compared to the previous fiscal year, covering 6% of the FFL population.

Table 5 shows that, as of January 11, 2016, there were 138,370 FFLs according to ATF. Type 3 FFLs, Collectors of Curios and Relics, comprised 43.0% of FFLs. These federal licensed firearms collectors are authorized to engage in limited interstate transfers of "curios and relics."

Types 1 and 2 FFLs, Dealers and Pawnbrokers in Firearms, comprised the next largest percentage, 40.4%. Dealers and Pawnbrokers essentially include retail firearms dealers who routinely make transfers to unlicensed, private persons. Prior to such transfers, federal law requires that a background check be conducted on the unlicensed, prospective transferee (buyer). Type 1 FFLs range from "big box" sporting goods stores to much smaller enterprises.

Types 6, 7, and 8 FFLs include ammunition manufacturers, firearms manufacturers, and firearms and ammunition importers. Types 9, 10, and 11 FFLs include dealers, manufacturers, and importers of firearms and other devices regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Figure 1 shows the number of FFLs by year for 1975 through 2015 in three broad categories:

Type 1 and 2 FFLs, Dealers and Pawnbrokers; Type 3 FFLs, Collectors of Curios and Relics; and all other FFL types.

It shows that the number of Type 1 and 2 FFLs, Dealers and Pawnbrokers, decreased precipitously, from about 258,607 in 1992 through the ensuing decade to 73,044 in 2001, a decrease of about 72%. This reduction was partly the result of higher licensing fees that Congress raised in the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act; P.L. 103-159 ).

This reduction has also been attributed to ATF changes in licensing regulations, such as a requirement that applicants submit a photograph and fingerprints. Congress codified this regulation in 1994. The number of Type 1 and 2 FFLs continued to decrease, but not as steeply until 2009. Since then, those numbers have increased by 18.3%, from 54,184 in 2009 to 64,087 in 2015. On the other hand, Figure 1 also shows that the number of Type 3 FFLs, Collectors of Curios and Relics, have increased from 13,512 in 1997 to 64,449 in 2015, an increase of about 377%.

Growth in the Civilian Gun Stock

Figure 2 illustrates the net annual increase in the U.S. civilian gun stock. Over a 35-year period, from 1980 to 2014, over 250 million firearms were introduced into the U.S. civilian gun stock. From 1992 to 1994, there were spikes as Congress debated and later passed the Brady Act ( P.L. 103-159 ) and the Violent Crime Control and Reduction Act ( P.L. 103-322 ). There were even greater spikes beginning in 2006. These increases were possibly spurred by fears that either the Administration or Congress would move to regulate firearms more stringently, when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, the Virginia Tech tragedy occurred in 2007, President Barack Obama was elected in 2008, several other high-profile mass public shootings occurred in 2009, and the Aurora, CO, and Newtown, CT, tragedies and other mass public shootings occurred in 2012.

In 2013, the year following the December 2012 Newtown, CT, mass shooting, about 16 million firearms were introduced into the U.S. civilian gun stock, marking this year for the single highest net annual increase of firearms in the U.S. civilian gun stock since such data have been collected. As described below, in April 2013, December 2015, and June 2016, the Senate considered legislation to expand background checks for firearms. These increases in the civilian gun stock could be viewed as one possible measure for ATF's correspondingly increasing responsibilities to regulate and monitor the domestic firearms industry and commerce.

According to Small Arms Survey, there were between 290 and 314 million firearms in the United States held by civilians in 2010, or nearly one firearm for every person in the United States. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that there were an estimated 350 million firearms in the United States as of 2013. Another source estimated that the U.S. civilian gun stock was between 310 and 320 million firearms as of 2014. In addition, there were about 1 million firearms in police possession and 4 million firearms in military possession. According to polls, about 35% of households own a gun, and 25% of adults own a gun (60 million adults). About 37% of men and 12% of women own guns.

Downward Trend in Violent Firearms-Related Crime

In its Congressional Budget Submission, Fiscal Year 201 7 , ATF cited incidents of criminal homicide, robbery, and aggravated assault committed with a firearm in calendar year 2014. The data in Figure 3 show criminal homicide victim rates, as well as estimated victim rates for all firearm- and handgun-related homicides. Gleaned from the FBI-compiled Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs), the data show that from year-to-year, about two-thirds of all victims were killed with firearms, and one-half of all victims were killed with handguns. Criminal homicide victim rates, with or without firearms, were lower in 2014 than they were in 1968.

In earlier years, however, criminal homicides peaked in 1974 at 20,710, 1980 at 23,040, 1991 at 24,700, and 1993 at 24,526. While firearms-related homicides bumped up slightly in 2006 and 2012, overall they have decreased by over half from 1993 to 2014, from 6.6 to 3.0 victims per 100,000 population. The estimated firearms murder rate per 100,000 population in 2014 was lower than in 1968. In 2014, it was 3.0 per 100,000 population. In 1968, it was 4.4 per 100,000 population.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports , about 40% of robberies, or two in five, are committed with firearms, and about 22% of aggravated assaults, or one in five, are committed with a firearm. Firearms-related robberies and aggravated assaults have also decreased since 1993. There were about 109 firearms-related robberies per 100,000 population in 1993 compared to 41 in 2014, and there were about 112 firearms-related aggravated assault per 100,000 population in 1993, compared to 52 in 2014.

Concluding Observations About ATF Workloads and Data Trends

As noted above, the number of federally licensed dealers and pawnbrokers (Type 1 and Type 2 FFLs) decreased substantially from 1992 to 2009. Since then, that number increased by 18.3%, to 64,087 in 2015. Nevertheless, there were fewer Type 1 and Type 2 FFLs than there were in 1992, when there were 258,607. Meanwhile, the number of firearms introduced into civilian gun stock grew appreciably to 8 million or more newly introduced firearms per year since 2009. These two phenomena together suggest that at least some federally licensed Type I firearms dealers were transferring substantially greater quantities of firearms at the retail level to unlicensed, private persons. ATF had traditionally allocated the lion's share of its resources toward its enforcement mission over its regulatory (administrative) mission. Moreover, the emphasis on enforcement over administration arguably might have increased after Congress transferred most of ATF from the Department of the Treasury to DOJ. If firearms-related violent crime should continue to decrease nationally, Congress could consider whether ATF should allocate a greater share of its resources toward its regulatory mission, particularly the monitoring of FFLs and explosives licensees and permittees.

Increase in National Firearms Act (NFA) Applications for Silencers

Under the NFA, as amended, the ATF regulates nonmilitary commerce in machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, silencers, a "catch-all" class of other "concealable" firearms identified as "any other weapon," and destructive devices. However, according to the American Suppressor Association, since 2011

17 states legalized suppressors [silencers] for hunting, bringing the total number of states allowing such activities to 39; 15 states passed "shall sign" or "shall certify" legislation that requires the presiding chief law enforcement officers in a community where an applicant lives to sign off on federal NFA applications for suppressors; and 3 states legalized suppressor ownership.

Eight states prohibit civilian ownership of suppressors. These changes in state law governing suppressors have led to an increase in workload for ATF. The number of legally registered suppressors in the ATF National Firearms Registry and Transfer Record (NFRTR) system have increased from 285,087 in December 2010 to 762,282 in February 2015, an increase of 167.3%.

Senate Committee Action

The Senate-reported FY2017 CJS appropriations bill ( S. 2837 ) would have provided ATF with $1.259 billion for FY2017. This amount was $18.6 million above the ATF's FY2016 appropriation, but $47.5 million below the Obama Administration's request. However, this amount was $6.8 million above the ATF projected base budget. Senate report language ( S.Rept. 114-239 ) expressed support for

the National Integrated Ballistics Information Network (NIBIN) and ongoing ATF efforts to address gun violence and enforce existing gun laws, while maintaining regulatory oversight over the U.S. domestic firearms industry; moving the U.S. Bomb Data Center (USBDC) permanently to the National Center for Explosives Training and Research (NCETR) and for ongoing efforts to provide advanced bomb disposal training to state, tribal, and local technicians; and ATF efforts to combat firearms trafficking across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Report language, however, was silent on increased staffing for firearms compliance inspections, increased NFA applications, and funding for a new investigative case management computer system.

House Committee Action

The House Committee on Appropriations reported an FY2017 appropriations bill ( H.R. 5393 , H.Rept. 114-605 ). This bill would have provided ATF with $1.258 billion for FY2017. This amount was nearly $17.8 million above the ATF's FY2016 appropriation, but was $48.3 million below the Obama Administration's FY2016 request.

With regard to ballistic imaging, House report language expressed concern that federal law enforcement agencies had not consistently entered crime scene ballistic evidence into NIBIN, "despite evidence that doing so aids investigations and reduces gun violence." House report language also directed ATF to report back to the committee on its plans to upgrade NIBIN and establish revised protocols for information sharing through this computer network. With regard to the NCETR, report language urged ATF to continue its support of the Center's efforts to counter advanced improvised explosive devices. With regard to ATF's growing NFA workload, report language noted the committee's concern with longer processing times, and the committee recommendation included $6.0 million to address this workload.

The House-reported bill included no provisions to change ATF appropriations limitations related to dealer inventory-taking or the curios and relics definition. On the other hand, as in years past, the House-reported bill included words of futurity in other limitations that would have possibly made them permanent law. Those riders addressed "gun walking" across the U.S.-Mexico border, firearms parts exports to Canada, curios and relics imports, and importation restrictions on shotguns that have been characterized as nonsporting.

In addition, as in the past, the House bill included a provision that would have prohibited ATF from collecting multiple long gun (rifle and shotgun) sales reports from federally licensed gun dealers in southern border states (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas).

Several amendments were adopted in full committee markup. According to Congressional Quarterly , one amendment was defeated by a vote of 17-29. This amendment would have authorized the Attorney General to deny a firearms transfer to anyone considered to be a "dangerous terrorist."

Post-Orlando Senate Floor Debate

Following the June 12, 2016, Orlando, FL, mass shooting, Senator Christopher Murphy and other Democrats successfully advocated for the consideration of gun control legislation after holding the Senate floor for nearly 15 hours. When the Senate took up the FY2017 Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) Appropriations bill ( H.R. 2578 , the expected vehicle for S. 2837 ), several gun control-related amendments were debated.

Senator Murphy offered an amendment ( S.Amdt. 4750 ) that would have expanded federal background check requirements to capture intrastate firearms transfers between unlicensed persons (nondealers). Supporters of the Murphy amendment maintain that it would have required "universal" background checks, although it too included exceptions. The Senate rejected further consideration of the Murphy amendment on procedural grounds. The Senate also rejected a procedural motion on an amendment offered by Senator Grassley ( S.Amdt. 4751 ) that included some provisions that were identical to those included in the amendment he previously offered in December 2015 to the Health Care Reconciliation bill ( H.R. 3762 ) . Those provisions were intended to improve background checks, but did not include any provisions that would have expanded background check requirements.

In addition, the Senate considered several other amendments ( S.Amdt. 4720 , S.Amdt. 4749 , S.Amdt. 4858 , and S.Amdt. 4859 ) that would have authorized the denial of firearms and explosives transfers to any person whom the Attorney General deemed to be a "dangerous terrorist." While some of those amendments made reference to the "No Fly" list, all of these amendments were loosely modeled on the "Terror Gap" proposal, which was originally developed by DOJ under then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. None of these amendments would have prohibited anyone from receiving or possessing a firearm simply because they were on the "No Fly" list, a claim mistakenly but repeatedly made by many mass media outlets. All but one of those "Terror Gap" amendments were blocked on procedural votes.

The Senate voted on a procedural motion on a modified "Terror Gap" proposal ( S.Amdt. 4858 ) that has commonly been referred to as the "Collins compromise." The Senate, however, rejected this motion (46 to 52) to recommit H.R. 2578 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the bill back with the language of the Collins compromise. And, the 52 votes against that motion were not enough to suggest that the Senate would be able to obtain the 60 votes likely required to amend the bill successfully. This motion was described as a "test vote."

Other Appropriated Funding

NICS and FBI Funding

In November 1998, the FBI activated the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Through this system, background checks are completed for all unlicensed persons seeking to obtain firearms from FFLs or firearms-related licenses and permits from state authorities. Intrastate transfers between unlicensed persons are not covered by the federal background check requirements. In recent years, the FBI has seen a significant increase in NICS transactions associated with firearms-related background checks by federal and state authorities. FBI-administered background checks through NICS increased from about 6.6 million in FY2011 to 8.5 million in FY2015.

For FY2017, the Obama Administration requested a $35 million increase for NICS. This amount included $15 million to sustain 75 professional support positions for FY2016, and $20 million to secure an additional 160 contractors. Report language accompanying both the Senate- and House-reported FY2017 CJS Appropriations bills ( S. 2837 and H.R. 5393 ) indicated that those bills would have provided the requested $35 million for NICS. For FY2016, the FBI reports that the NICS program budget was anticipated to be $94.1 million. Hence a $35 million enhancement would bring the FY2017 NICS programs budget to $121.1 million.

The NICS program falls under the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) decision unit, for which the Obama Administration requested $506.3 million for 2017. The Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 244 , submitted by the House Committee on Appropriations Chair, Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen, indicated that P.L. 115-31 included $511.3 million for CJIS, and that this funding supports fully the CJIS programs, including NICS.

NCHIP and NARIP Grants

Congress has appropriated funding to improve criminal history recordkeeping under a DOJ-administered grant program known as the National Criminal History Improvement Program. This program was originally authorized under the 1993 Brady Act ( P.L. 103-159 ). After the April 2007 Virginia Tech mass shooting, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA; P.L. 110-180 ). This act strengthens a provision of the Brady Act that requires federal agencies to make records on persons prohibited from possessing firearms available electronically to the FBI for the purposes of firearms-related background checks through NICS. It also includes provisions designed to encourage states to make such records available to the FBI. This act prioritizes federal–state record sharing on persons deemed too mentally incompetent to be trusted with firearms, as well as records on domestic violence misdemeanor convictions and restraining orders. The Obama Administration designated the grant program under P.L. 110-180 to be the NICS Amendments Improvement Act (NARIP).

For FY2016, Congress provided $73 million for these purposes, of which not less than $25 million was for grants for purposes addressed in P.L. 110-180 . For FY2017, the Obama Administration requested $48 million for NCHIP and $5 million for NARIP. The Senate bill ( S. 2837 ) would have provided $75 million for these purposes, of which not less than $25 million would have been for grants for purposes addressed in P.L. 110-180 . The House bill ( H.R. 5398 ) would have provided $73 million for these purposes, of which not less than $25 million would have been for grants for purposes addressed in P.L. 110-180 . The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ) includes $73 million for these purposes, including the $25 million set aside for the grant programs established by P.L. 110-180 .

Gun Violence Prevention Research

For FY2017, the Obama Administration requested $10 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to sponsor research into preventing and ameliorating gun violence. Although the budget request uses the term "violence," CDC's stated intent was to use the funds "to address gaps in knowledge about firearm injury prevention," which were identified in a report prepared by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council in 2013 following the Newtown, CT, mass shooting in December 2012. Based on this report, CDC stated that the research to be funded would have addressed questions related to "youth access to firearms, risk factors for firearm violence, and risks and benefits of firearms ownership, among other issues." The Obama Administration made similar requests for FY2014, FY2015, and FY2016, but Congress did not appropriate funding for these purposes.

For FY1997 and every fiscal year thereafter, Congress has attached a provision to Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education appropriations prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to "advocate or promote gun control." On June 14, 1996, during subcommittee markup of the FY1997 Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill ( H.R. 3755 ), Representative Jay Dickey offered an amendment that would have redirected $2.6 million in funding away from a CDC program that had previously funded research on the risks of gun death and injury associated with gun ownership. Although the Dickey amendment was not approved, the subcommittee gave voice vote approval to an alternative amendment by the Committee Chair, Representative Robert Livingston. This amendment read, "Provided further, That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

Although this language was not offered by Representative Dickey, it has become known as the "Dickey" amendment. Regarding the enacted provision, House FY1997 report language noted the following:

The bill contains a limitation to prohibit the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from engaging in any activities to advocate or promote gun control. The CDC may need to collect data on the incidence of gun related violence, but the Committee does not believe that it is the role of the CDC to advocate or promote policies to advance gun control initiatives, or to discourage responsible private gun ownership. The Committee expects research in this area to be objective and grants to be awarded through an impartial peer review process.

At issue, in 1996, was CDC-sponsored research by Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann, who had his findings published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine . In 1996, the House Committee on Appropriations heard testimony from several witnesses who either provided "scathing attacks" or "passionate defenses" of Dr. Kellermann's work.

From FY1997 through FY2011, this appropriations limitation was embedded in CDC appropriations language and applied only to the Centers. For FY2012, Congress expanded the scope of the prohibition to all of HHS. In addition, for FY2012, Congress modified another limitation in previous years' bills that prohibited any department or agency funded under the bill from conducting "publicity or propaganda ... designed to support or defeat the enactment of legislation," so that it extended to "any proposed, pending, or future requirement or restriction on any legal consumer product, including its sale or marketing, including but not limited to the advocacy or promotion of gun control."

According to one news outlet editorial, at issue in 2011 were three National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored research initiatives that examined links between alcohol availability and gun violence, alcohol use and firearms carrying among adolescent assault victims, and parental gun ownership as a hazard to children. Though these appropriations limitations for FY1997-2011 did not overtly prohibit research on gun violence, they were possibly a congressional response to research that was objectionable to at least some Members of Congress for advocating or promoting gun control with taxpayer-funded research. The House Appropriations Subcommittee Chair who oversaw the expansion of the Dickey amendment to include NIH and other HHS agencies for FY2012 argued that

in one study that tried to determine why parents chose to own a gun, the NIH characterized parental gun ownership as a "hazard" to their children's safety, and aimed to solidify the notion that a "home free of hazards" was essential to a child's well-being. The clear insinuation is the federal government is telling citizens that if they have a gun in the house they are not a good parent.

Other Members of Congress see these limitations as having "chilled unbiased scientific research into the causes of gun violence and the means of preventing it."

In the aftermath of the December 2012 Newtown, CT, mass shooting, President Barack Obama released a plan, Now Is The Time , to reduce gun violence. In this plan, the President stated that "research on gun violence is not advocacy." As an executive action, the President issued a memorandum directing CDC and other agencies within HHS to

conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it. The Secretary shall begin by identifying the most pressing research questions with the greatest potential public health impact, and by assessing existing public health interventions being implemented across the Nation to prevent gun violence.

For FY2017, the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations reported Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bills ( S. 3040 and H.R. 5926 ) that would have continued the limitations described above, and neither bill would have provided the requested $10 million for gun violence prevention research. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ) included both limitations (Division H of the FY2017 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Act, §§210 and 503) and did not provide funding for gun violence prevention research.

Appendix. Firearms-Related Appropriations Limitations and Other Provisions

Congress has placed nine provisos related to domestic gun control on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) appropriations for salaries and expenses (S&E) and included another six provisos in either the Department of Justice (DOJ) general provisions or the general provisions for the entire Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) and Related Appropriations Act. Congress has included "words of futurity" (e.g., "in each fiscal year thereafter") in several of these provisos that appear to be intended to make them permanent law. One proviso—the "Tiahrt amendment"—has included words of futurity since FY2005, but was included in subsequent appropriations acts through FY2012. This proviso restricts ATF from using appropriations to release unfiltered firearms trace data, and prohibits the use of such data for the purposes of supporting civil lawsuits. Gun control advocates have argued that the Tiahrt amendment and other limitations on the ATF appropriations have unduly hampered that agency from enforcing the law, and consequently have called for their repeal. Supporters of gun rights, on the other hand, maintain that these limitations prevent ATF from overreaching its statutory and regulatory authority.

For FY2012, Congress included words of futurity in four of those provisos that appear to be intended to make them permanent law. Those FY2012 provisos are

S&E Proviso One: Firearms Acquisition/Disposition Data Collection; S&E Proviso Six: Trace Data and Tiahrt Amendment; S&E Proviso Eight: Out-of-Business Dealers' Records Searches; and NICS Fee Prohibition and Next-Day Destruction of Records.

For FY2013, Congress included words of futurity in several additional provisos. Those FY2013 provisions are

S&E Proviso Two: Curios or Relics Definition; S&E Proviso Seven: Dealer Inventory; S&E Proviso Nine: Dealer License Denials for Lack of Business; and Trace Data Caveats.

As discussed in the text of this report and below, the Obama Administration requested for FY2014, FY2015, and FY2016 that two of those provisos be repealed. Those provisos are

S&E Proviso Two: Curios or Relics Definition; and S&E Proviso Seven: Dealer Inventory.

For FY2013, FY2014, FY2015, and FY2016, the House CJS appropriations bills included words of futurity in two other provisions. While these provisos were included in the enacted appropriations laws, the words of futurity were not. Those provisos are

Firearms Parts Exports to Canada; and Curios and Relics Imports.

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ), Congress included words of futurity in these two additional provisions.

There are five other provisos for which Congress has not included words of futurity. Those provisos are

S&E Proviso Three: Relief from Firearms Disabilities for Individuals; S&E Proviso Four: Relief from Firearms Disabilities for Corporations; S&E Proviso Five: ATF Reorganization and Dismantlement; Anti-Gun Walking Amendment; and Shotgun Imports.

In the 114 th Congress, legislation has been introduced to repeal several of these provisos (see H.R. 1449 and H.R. 2939 ). A more detailed legislative history of all these provisos discussed above along with their language is provided below.

Salaries and Expenses (S&E) Provisos

ATF S&E Proviso One: Firearms Acquisition/Disposition Data Collection

For FY1979 through FY2012, Congress included a proviso in the ATF S&E appropriations language in response to an administrative proposal made during the Carter Administration that would have required firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers to submit quarterly reports on the sale and disposition of firearms. House and Senate report language expressed the view that this proposed regulation exceeded ATF's authority under the Gun Control Act of 1968 ( H.R. 12930 ; H.Rept. 95-1259 and S.Rept. 95-939). In addition, a proviso was enacted that prohibits ATF from using appropriations for the purposes of creating what has often been characterized as a "registry of firearms or firearms owners." For FY2012, a word of futurity ("hereafter") was included in this proviso, which appears to be intended to make it permanent law. The proviso reads as follows:

Provided , That no funds appropriated herein or hereafter shall be available for salaries or administrative expenses in connection with consolidating or centralizing, within the Department of Justice, the records, or any portion thereof, of acquisition and disposition of firearms maintained by [F]ederal firearms licensees.

ATF S&E Proviso Two: Curios or Relics Definition

For FY1996 through FY2013, Congress included a proviso in the ATF S&E appropriations language that prohibits ATF from using appropriated funding for the purposes of changing the definition of "curios or relics." This provision was in response to an ATF proposal to amend the definition of "curios or relics," because of concerns about the volume of surplus military firearms that could be imported into the United States. ATF has consistently opposed the importation of certain World War II-era surplus military firearms. The language of this proviso is as follows:

Provided further, That no funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay administrative expenses or the compensation of any officer or employee of the United States to implement an amendment or amendments to 27 CFR 478.118 or to change the definition of "Curios or relics" in 27 CFR 478.11 or remove any item from ATF Publication 5300.11 as it existed on January 1, 1994.

For FY2013, Congress included words of futurity ("the current fiscal year and any fiscal year thereafter") in this proviso, which appear to have made it permanent law. For each fiscal year thereafter, FY2014 through FY2017, the Obama Administration requested as part of its annual congressional budget submissions that this proviso be repealed. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) included no provision to repeal or change this appropriations limitation. Neither the Senate nor the House FY2017 CJS appropriations bills ( S. 2837 and H.R. 5393 ) included any provisions to repeal or change this appropriations limitation, nor does the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ).

ATF S&E Proviso Three: Relief from Firearms Disabilities for Individuals

For FY1993 and every year thereafter, Congress included a proviso in the ATF S&E appropriations language that prevents that agency from using appropriations to consider applications for disabilities relief (i.e., reinstatement of an applicant's right to gun ownership) from individuals who are otherwise ineligible to be transferred a firearm. In the 102 nd Congress, House report language ( H.R. 5488 ; H.Rept. 102-618) included the following justification: "the Committee believes that the $3.75 million and the 40 man-years annually spent investigating and acting upon these applications for relief would be better utilized by ATF in fighting violent crime." Senate and Conference report language were silent on this issue. The language of this proviso is as follows:

Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated herein shall be available to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c).

For FY2015, this proviso was included in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 ( P.L. 113-235 ). For FY2016, the Senate Committee on Appropriations included identical language in its reported CJS appropriations bill ( H.R. 2578 , as amended). The House-passed version of H.R. 2578 , however, reflected a floor amendment ( H.Amdt. 302 ) that would have required ATF to process disability relief applications for individuals. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ), however, did not include this amended provision. Instead, it included and maintained the appropriations limitation described above. Both the Senate and House FY2017 CJS Appropriations bills ( S. 2837 and H.R. 5393 ) included identical provisions, as does the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ).

ATF S&E Proviso Four: Relief from Firearms Disabilities for Corporations

For FY1994 and every year thereafter, Congress added a related proviso explicitly stating that appropriated funds could be used to process disability relief applications for corporations.

Provided further, That such funds shall be available to investigate and act upon applications filed by corporations for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code.

For FY2015, this proviso was included in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 ( P.L. 113-235 ). For FY2016, an identical proviso was included in the House-passed CJS appropriations bill ( H.R. 2578 ) and Senate-reported bill ( H.R. 2578 , as amended). The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) included this appropriations limitation. Both the Senate and House FY2017 CJS Appropriations bills ( S. 2837 and H.R. 5393 ) included identical provisions, as does the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ).

ATF S&E Proviso Five: ATF Reorganization or Dismantlement

For FY1994 and every year thereafter, Congress included a proviso in the ATF S&E appropriations language that prevents the use of appropriations to dismantle that agency. That provision was a response to Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review report released on September 7, 1993, which called for the transfer of ATF's law enforcement functions to the FBI. Under this recommendation, ATF's regulatory and revenue functions were to remain at the Department of the Treasury, but be transferred to the Internal Revenue Service. The language of this proviso is as follows:

Provided further, That no funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to transfer the functions, missions, or activities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to other agencies or Departments.

For FY2015, this proviso was included in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 ( P.L. 113-235 ). For FY2016, identical language was included in the House-passed and Senate-reported versions of H.R. 2578 . Similarly, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) included this appropriations limitation. Both the Senate and House FY2017 CJS appropriations bills ( S. 2837 and H.R. 5393 ) included identical provisions, as does the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ).

ATF S&E Proviso Six: Trace Data and the Tiahrt Amendment

For FY2004 through FY2012, Congress included a proviso in the ATF S&E appropriations language that is known for the Member who originally offered the amendment, Representative Todd Tiahrt. For FY2003, Congress had previously included a related provision in the Treasury-Postal appropriations act, which was reportedly included in the bill at the request of Representative George R. Nethercutt. As shown below, the Nethercutt provision was drawn more narrowly than the Tiahrt proviso.

The Tiahrt amendment prohibits ATF from using appropriations to make unfiltered trace data available to any parties other than domestic and foreign law enforcement (with greater restrictions in the latter case) and national security agencies. The proviso exempts trace reports, which ATF has traditionally produced for statistical purposes and firearms trafficking trend analysis. Unlike other ATF appropriations provisions, this one has been substantively altered several times. The last substantive revision was for FY2010. Nevertheless, it has included some form of futurity language ("in each fiscal year thereafter") since its inception, most recently for FY2012. The language of this proviso is as follows:

Provided further, That, during the current fiscal year and in each fiscal year thereafter, no funds appropriated under this or any other Act may be used to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, or required to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (7) of such section, except to: (1) a Federal, State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, or a Federal, State, or local prosecutor; or (2) a foreign law enforcement agency solely in connection with or for use in a criminal investigation or prosecution; or (3) a Federal agency for a national security or intelligence purpose; unless such disclosure of such data to any of the entities described in (1), (2) or (3) of this proviso would compromise the identity of any undercover law enforcement officer or confidential informant, or interfere with any case under investigation;

and no person or entity described in (1), (2) or (3) shall knowingly and publicly disclose such data;

and all such data shall be immune from legal process, shall not be subject to subpoena or other discovery, shall be inadmissible in evidence, and shall not be used, relied on, or disclosed in any manner, nor shall testimony or other evidence be permitted based on the data, in a civil action in any State (including the District of Columbia) or Federal court or in an administrative proceeding other than a proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of such title, or a review of such an action or proceeding;

except that this proviso shall not be construed to prevent: (A) the disclosure of statistical information concerning total production, importation, and exportation by each licensed importer (as defined in section 921(a)(9) of such title) and licensed manufacturer (as defined in section 921(a)(10) of such title); (B) the sharing or exchange of such information among and between Federal, State, local, or foreign law enforcement agencies, Federal, State, or local prosecutors, and Federal national security, intelligence, or counterterrorism officials; or (C) the publication of annual statistical reports on products regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, including total production, importation, and exportation by each licensed importer (as so defined) and licensed manufacturer (as so defined), or statistical aggregate data regarding firearms traffickers and trafficking channels, or firearms misuse, felons, and trafficking investigations.

After FY2012, this proviso has not appeared in any subsequent ATF appropriations. It appears that the words of futurity discussed above were considered to make this proviso permanent law.

Congress included a related provision in the FY2003 Treasury-Postal appropriations act. This provision arguably has prohibited, and possibly would continue to prohibit, ATF from using appropriated funding for the purposes of processing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for trace data. Report language stated the following:

The need to maintain these databases [firearms trace data and multiple handgun sales reports] on a limited confidential basis that has been in place at ATF for several years for tracing records derives from the long-term nature of criminal investigations. In addition to jeopardizing criminal investigations and officer safety, such information, once released, might easily be disseminated through the Internet. This would not only pose a risk to law enforcement and homeland security, but also to the privacy of innocent citizens ( H.Rept. 107-575 ).

The language of this provision is as follows:

Sec. 644. No funds appropriated under this Act or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year shall be available to take any action based upon any provision of 5 U.S.C. 552 with respect to records collected or maintained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 846(b), 923(g)(3) or 923(g)(7), or provided by Federal, State, local, or foreign law enforcement agencies in connection with arson or explosives incidents or the tracing of a firearm, except that such records may continue to be disclosed to the extent and in the manner that records so collected, maintained, or obtained have been disclosed under 5 U.S.C. 552 prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.

This provision was not included in subsequent appropriations laws. However, it too includes words of futurity ("with respect to any fiscal year"), which appear to be intended to make it permanent law. The scope of subsequent Tiahrt provisos also prohibited all FOIA disclosures of trace data.

ATF S&E Proviso Seven: Dealer Inventory

For FY2004 through FY2013, Congress included a proviso in the ATF S&E appropriations language that prohibits the agency from using any appropriations to require federal firearms licensees to conduct inventories before an inspection. This provision was also part of the FY2004 Tiahrt amendment. The language of this proviso is as follows:

Provided further, That no funds made available by this or any other Act shall be expended to promulgate or implement any rule requiring a physical inventory of any business licensed under section 923 of title 18, United States Code.

For FY2013, Congress included words of futurity ("for any fiscal year thereafter") in this provision, which appear to have been intended to make it permanent law. As part of its FY2014, FY2015, and FY2016 budget request, the Obama Administration requested that this proviso be repealed. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) included no provision that would have changed this appropriations limitation. Neither the Senate nor the House FY2017 CJS Appropriations bills ( S. 2837 and H.R. 5393 ) included any provisions to repeal or change this limitation, nor does the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ).

ATF S&E Proviso Eight: Out-of-Business Dealers' Records Searches

For FY1997 through FY2012, Congress included a proviso in the ATF S&E appropriations language that prohibits ATF from using appropriations to search computerized records of out-of-business FFLs. Such records—the bound logs of firearms acquisitions and dispositions and ATF Form 4473s—are digitized for storage purposes and kept in a microform format for evidentiary purposes. For FY2012, a word of futurity ("hereafter") was included in this proviso, which appears to be intended to make it permanent law ( P.L. 112-55 ). The language of this provision is as follows:

Provided further, That, hereafter, no funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to electronically retrieve information gathered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(4) by name or any personal identification code.

ATF S&E Proviso Nine: Dealer License Denials for Lack of Business

For FY2004 and through FY2013, Congress included a proviso in the ATF S&E appropriations language that prohibits ATF from using appropriations to deny or renew a dealer license for lack of business. This proviso was in response to ATF efforts during the Clinton Administration to reduce the number of individuals who arguably held federal firearms licenses simply for the sake of convenience, as opposed to the means to pursue their principal source of livelihood. Pro-gun control groups referred to such dealers as "kitchen table top dealers." It too was part of the FY2004 Tiahrt amendment. The language of this provision is as follows:

Provided further, That no funds authorized or made available under this or any other Act may be used to deny any application for a license under section 923 of title 18, United States Code, or renewal of such a license due to a lack of business activity, provided that the applicant is otherwise eligible to receive such a license, and is eligible to report business income or to claim an income tax deduction for business expenses under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

After 2013, this provision was not included in any subsequent appropriation, possibly because of words of futurity language ("for any fiscal year thereafter") in P.L. 113-6 , which appear to have been intended to make it permanent law.

Other Stand-Alone Appropriations Provisions

Anti-Gun Walking Amendment

For FY2012 through FY2015, Congress included a provision in the annual CJS appropriations acts that prohibits an investigative tactic known as "gun walking." As part of a flawed investigation known as "Operation Fast and Furious," the DOJ Office of the Inspector General found that ATF special agents did not act in a timely manner to arrest, or at least confront, suspected "straw purchasers" and interdict the firearms they had purchased in multiple transactions from federally licensed gun dealers, when the agents arguably had a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that they, the straw purchasers, were trafficking firearms illegally to known associates of Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Senator John Cornyn sponsored an amendment to the FY2012 CJS appropriations act that included a related provision to prevent "gun walking." While the language of the Cornyn amendment was modified, the related FY2012 provision reads as follows:

Sec. 219. None of the funds made available under this Act, other than for the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, may be used by a Federal law enforcement officer to facilitate the transfer of an operable firearm to an individual if the Federal law enforcement officer knows or suspects that the individual is an agent of a drug cartel, unless law enforcement personnel of the United States continuously monitor or control the firearm at all times.

For FY2015, Congress included this provision in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 ( P.L. 113-235 ; §215). The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) included this provision (§216). For FY2017, both the Senate and House Appropriations bills ( S. 2837 and H.R. 5393 ) included this provision (§215 and §213, respectively). The House bill included words of futurity ("for fiscal year FY2017 and each fiscal year thereafter"). The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ) includes two similar, but slightly different versions of this provision (§§216 and 526). Neither provision includes futurity language, however.

NICS Fee Prohibition and Next-Day Destruction of Records

For FY1999 through FY2012, Congress has included a provision in the annual CJS appropriations acts that prohibits the Department of Justice from using appropriations to levy a fee for firearms-related background checks under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This provision was crafted to counter a Clinton Administration proposal to levy a $5 fee for such checks. For FY2004 and every year thereafter, along with the fee prohibition, Congress has included a provision that requires the FBI to destroy background check records within 24 hours on persons who are eligible to receive firearms. This provision was originally part of the FY2004 Tiahrt amendment and was crafted in response to a 90-day audit log that was maintained by the FBI during the Clinton Administration for audit and other purposes. For FY2012, Congress inserted a word of futurity ("hereafter") in this provision. The language of this provision is as follows:

Sec. 511. Hereafter, none of the funds appropriated pursuant to this Act or any other provision of law may be used for—

(1) the implementation of any tax or fee in connection with the implementation of subsection 922(t) of title 18, United States Code; and

(2) any system to implement subsection 922(t) of title 18, United States Code, that does not require and result in the destruction of any identifying information submitted by or on behalf of any person who has been determined not to be prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm no more than 24 hours after the system advises a Federal firearms licensee that possession or receipt of a firearm by the prospective transferee would not violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or State law.

After FY2012, this provision was not included in any subsequent CJS appropriations, possibly because of the words of futurity in P.L. 112-55 , which appear to have been intended to make this provision permanent law.

Trace Data Limitations and Caveats

This proviso was first included in the FY2004 CJS appropriations bill as part of the FY2004 Tiahrt amendment. The language of this provision (originally number §516) is as follows:

(a) Tracing studies conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are released without adequate disclaimers regarding the limitations of the data.

(b) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives shall include in all such data releases, language similar to the following that would make clear that trace data cannot be used to draw broad conclusions about firearms-related crime:

(1) Firearm traces are designed to assist law enforcement authorities in conducting investigations by tracking the sale and possession of specific firearms. Law enforcement agencies may request firearms traces for any reason, and those reasons are not necessarily reported to the Federal Government. Not all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime.

(2) Firearms selected for tracing are not chosen for purposes of determining which types, makes, or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected do not constitute a random sample and should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe. Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general are acquired for use in crime.

For FY2013, Congress included words of futurity ("for FY2013 and thereafter") in this provision that appear to have been intended to make it permanent law.

Firearms Parts Exports to Canada

Congress first included this provision in the FY2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act to prohibit the use of funds provided under this act to require certain export licenses. This provision was a congressional response to new regulations promulgated during the Clinton Administration (1999) that were based on the Organization of American States (OAS) Model Regulations for the Control of the International Movement of Firearms. As a result of the export licensing provisions in these regulations, it arguably became cost prohibitive for a Canadian resident to acquire certain firearms parts from U.S. gun dealers. Hence, this provision (originally number §520) makes certain firearms parts exempt from some, but not all export licensing requirements. It reads as follows:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or treaty, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available under this Act or any other Act may be expended or obligated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States to pay administrative expenses or to compensate an officer or employee of the United States in connection with requiring an export license for the export to Canada of components, parts, accessories or attachments for firearms listed in Category I, section 121.1 of title 22, Code of Federal Regulations (International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR), part 121, as it existed on April 1, 2005) with a total value not exceeding $500 wholesale in any transaction, provided that the conditions of subsection (b) of this section are met by the exporting party for such articles.

(b) The foregoing exemption from obtaining an export license—

(1) does not exempt an exporter from filing any Shipper's Export Declaration or notification letter required by law, or from being otherwise eligible under the laws of the United States to possess, ship, transport, or export the articles enumerated in subsection (a); and

(2) does not permit the export without a license of–(A) fully automatic firearms and components and parts for such firearms, other than for end use by the Federal Government, or a Provincial or Municipal Government of Canada; (B) barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames) or complete breech mechanisms for any firearm listed in Category I, other than for end use by the Federal Government, or a Provincial or Municipal Government of Canada; or (C) articles for export from Canada to another foreign destination.

(c) In accordance with this section, the District Directors of Customs and postmasters shall permit the permanent or temporary export without a license of any unclassified articles specified in subsection (a) to Canada for end use in Canada or return to the United States, or temporary import of Canadian-origin items from Canada for end use in the United States or return to Canada for a Canadian citizen.

(d) The President may require export licenses under this section on a temporary basis if the President determines, upon publication first in the Federal Register, that the Government of Canada has implemented or maintained inadequate import controls for the articles specified in subsection (a), such that a significant diversion of such articles has and continues to take place for use in international terrorism or in the escalation of a conflict in another nation. The President shall terminate the requirements of a license when reasons for the temporary requirements have ceased.

This provision was included in the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 ( P.L. 113-235 , §517). For FY2013 through FY2016, the House Committee on Appropriations included words of futurity in its versions of that provision, but such language was not included in any of the enacted appropriations laws for those fiscal years. Section 517 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) continued to prohibit the use of funds in that act to require export licenses for the purposes described above. For FY2017, both the Senate and House CJS Appropriations bills ( S. 2837 and H.R. 5393 ) included this provision (§517 and §516, respectively). The House bill included words of futurity (in FY2017 and each fiscal year thereafter). The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ) includes this provision (§517) with words of futurity ("made available under this Act or any other Act") that appear to have been intended to make this provision permanent law.

Curios and Relics Imports

Congress first included this provision in the FY2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act to prohibit the use of funds in this act to deny certain import applications. The language of this provision (originally numbered §521) is as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States receiving appropriated funds under this Act or any other Act shall obligate or expend in any way such funds to pay administrative expenses or the compensation of any officer or employee of the United States to deny any application submitted pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(1)(B) and qualified pursuant to 27 CFR section 478.112 or .113, for a permit to import United States origin "curios or relics" firearms, parts, or ammunition.

This provision was included in the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 ( P.L. 113-235 ; §517). For FY2013 through FY2015, the House Committee on Appropriations included words of futurity in its version of that provision, but such language was not included in any of the enacted appropriations laws for those fiscal years. Section 518 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) continued to prohibit the use of funds in that act to deny import applications for "curios or relics" firearms, parts, or ammunition. For FY2017, both the Senate and House CJS Appropriations bills ( S. 2837 and H.R. 5393 ) included this provision (§518 and §517, respectively). The House provision included words of futurity (in fiscal year 2017 and each fiscal year thereafter). The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ) includes this provision (§518) with words of futurity ("under this Act or any other Act") that appear to have been intended to make this provision permanent law.

Shotgun Imports

Congress first included this provision in the FY2012 CJS appropriations law in response to an ATF study, which characterized certain shotguns as "non-sporting," because they include certain "military-style" features (e.g., pistol grips, folding or collapsible stocks, laser sights, as well as the ability to accept large capacity ammunition feeding devices). The language of this provision (originally number §541) is as follows:

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries or expenses of personnel to deny, or fail to act on, an application for the importation of any model of shotgun if—

(1) all other requirements of law with respect to the proposed importation are met; and

(2) no application for the importation of such model of shotgun, in the same configuration, had been denied by the Attorney General prior to January 1, 2011, on the basis that the shotgun was not particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.

This provision was included in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 ( P.L. 113-235 ; §533). For FY2013 through FY2015, the House Committee on Appropriations included words of futurity in its version of this provision, but such language was not included in any of the enacted appropriations laws for those fiscal years. Section 532 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ) continued to prohibit the use of funds provided in that act from being used to deny the importation of certain shotgun models on the basis that the shotgun was not particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes For FY2017, both the Senate and House CJS Appropriations bills ( S. 2837 and H.R. 2578 ) included this provision (§531 and §530, respectively). The House provision included words of futurity (for FY2017 and each fiscal year thereafter). The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ) includes this provision (§531), but it does not include words of futurity.

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty

For FY2013 and every year thereafter, Congress has included a provision in the CJS Appropriations Act that has prohibited expenditure of any funding provided under that act to implement an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that the United Nations General Assembly adopted on April 2, 2013. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry signed the ATT on September 25, 2013. The FY2013 language of this provision is as follows:

Sec. 7075. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be obligated or expended to implement the Arms Trade Treaty until the Senate approves a resolution of ratification for the Treaty.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ) includes an identical provision (§7062).

The Obama Administration transmitted the ATT to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification on December 9, 2016. The purpose of the ATT is to reduce illicit small arms trafficking by creating a legally binding framework to govern arms transfers. The U.S. Department of State argued that the treaty would promote common international standards for the import, export, and the transfer of advanced conventional weapons and, thus, to prevent terrorists, criminals, human rights abusers, and regimes subject to UN embargoes from acquiring certain types of weapons.

Under the treaty, the term "advanced conventional weapons" includes tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery systems, military aircraft, naval vessels, missiles, missile launchers, combat support equipment, as well as small arms and light weapons. The State Department has maintained that the treaty essentially requires other countries adopting arms export control statutes and regulations that are comparable to current law in the United States. By adopting comparable export controls, the State Department maintains that the international community will arguably be better positioned to address illicit arms trafficking.

Opponents of the ATT, including some Members of Congress, have generally opposed any international arms control treaty that could possibly diminish an individual's ability to keep and bear arms as provided under the Second Amendment. The State Department has asserted that the treaty clearly protects the sovereignty of the United States and U.S. interests, including the rights protected under the U.S. Constitution. The ATT's preamble reads, in part:

"Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system"; and "Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law."

Opponents countered that the treaty pays only cursory attention to the legitimate uses of firearms by individuals and their constitutionally enumerated rights thereto, and that the rest of the document does not adequately address such concerns.

Before the United Nations General Assembly adopted the ATT, Senator James Inhofe offered an amendment ( S.Amdt. 139 ) to the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, Fiscal Year 2013 ( S.Con.Res. 8 ) on March 22, 2013, that essentially repudiated the treaty. The amendment passed by a roll call vote, in which 8 Democrats joined 45 Republicans in was been characterized by the press as a "test vote" on possible Senate ratification of the treaty, which requires a two-thirds majority. According to the Heritage Foundation, though opponents of the treaty may view the United Nations' efforts to thwart illicit arms trafficking commendable, they argue that the methods and strategies devised to counter those illicit activities must be balanced with more adequate protections for the lawful ownership of firearms by civilians. In addition, the National Shooting Sports Foundation maintains that the treaty could increase already existing burdens on the U.S. firearms industry and drastically increase the cost of doing business.