Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
28272108
label
Gun Shows Compromise
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
28272108
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Gun Shows Compromise
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Deanne Benos's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
28272108
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7367452-20120726S-022-007-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
7fdada3d25554ef0
ocrText
06/12/00 MON 08:18 FAX
001
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Committee on the Judiciary
Democratic Staff Office
B-351-C Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
FACSIMILE COVER LETTER
TO:
Deanne
FAX NO: 456-7028
# PAGES:
(including this page)
FROM:
PERRY APELBAUM
SAMPAK GARG
SCOTT DEUTCHMAN
MICHONE JOHNSON
CAROLYN DONNELLY
TED KALO
CORI FLAM
KEENAN KELLER
ANTHONY FOXX
MATT NOSANCHUK
TERESA VEST
COMMENTS:
If parts of this transmission are unclear or transmission
was faulted, please call: (202) 225-6906.
06/12/00 MON 08:18 FAX
002
MINORITY MEMBERS
MAJORITY MEMBERS
JOHN CONYERS JR MICHIGAN
HENRY HYDE ILLINOIS CHAIRMAN
BARNEY FRANK. MASSACHUSETTE
$ JAMES SENSE NBRENNER JR WISCONSIN
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
HOWARD BERMAN CALIFORNIA
BILL MOCOLLUM FUDRIDA
RICK BOUCHER VIRGINIA
GEORGE n GEKAS PENNSYLVANIA
JERROLD NADLER NEW YORK
HOWARD COGLE NORTH CAROLINA
LAMAR SMITH TEXAS
Congress of the United States
ROBERT c -BOBBY SCOTT VIRGINIA
MELVIN L WATT NORTH CAROLINA
ELION GALLEGLY CALIFORNIA
=00 LOFGREN, CALIFORNIA
CHARLES) CANADY FLORIDA
SHEILA JACKSON LEE. TEXAS
900 GOODLATE VIRGINIA
trouse of Representatives
MAXINE WATERS, CALIFORNIA
STEVE CHABO' OHIC
MARTIN MEEHAN, MASSACHUSETTS
BOB BARR GEORGIA
WILLIAM D. DELAMONT MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM L JENKINS TENNESSEE
ASA HUTCHINSON ARKANSAS
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
AOBERT WEXLER. FLORIDA
STEVEN ROTHMAN NEW JERSEY
EDWARD a PEASE. INDIANA
TAMMY BALDWIN. WISCONSIN
CHRIS CANNON UTAH
2138 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
ANTHONY 0 WEINER. NEW YORK
JAMES E ROGAN. CALIFORNIA
LINDSEY GRAHAM SOUTH CAROLINA
MARV BONO CALIFORNIA
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6216
SPENCER BACHUS. ALASAMA
THOMAS E MOONEY SA
JULIAN EPSTEIN
JOE SCARBOROUGH FLORIDA
GENERAL COUNSEL CHIEF OF STAFF
(202) 225-3951
MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL
DAVID VITTER. LOUISIANA
http. house.gov/fudiciary
AND STAFF DIRECTOR
JON DUDAS
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL STAFF DIRECTOR
June 8, 2000
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Hyde:
I write to inquire again about your willingness to accept my gun safety proposal that
meets the criteria set out in your letter of May 12.
On May 12 - on the eve of the Million Mom March - you wrote expressing your
willingness to make several concessions in an effort to move our discussions forward on gun
safety legislation. Heartened by your willingness to compromise on several sticking points, I
replied immediately by sending you actual legislative language that incorporated the criteria you
outlined in your letter. Based on your spokesman's comments to the media that "(w)e'll have an
answer for Mr. Conyers sooner rather than later," Associated Press, May 16, 2000, I eagerly
awaited your reply. I felt especially motivated to reach an agreement on gun safety in response to
the overwhelming show of support for such measures by the 750,000 mothers and their families
who marched on Mother's Day.
Since I provided you with compromise language, our nation has witnessed another rash of
gun violence tragedies that are both senseless and preventable. Most notably, in Fort Worth,
Florida, a high school student shot his teacher on the last day of school. In the words of the
school's superintendent, "(i)f this gun had been locked, ladies and gentlemen, if this gun had a
lock on it, we wouldn't be here having this tragic conversation today." This could not make it
any clearer that the Congress's inaction on gun safety legislation not only is measured in days,
but in lives.
I have offered a reasonable compromise that translates your criteria into legislation. My
offer is still open, but I still have not heard from you. The Conference Committee has been
dormant for nearly one year. If you sign on to my proposed compromise, we would need only
one other Republican signature to have a House position and move this legislation forward.
Sincerely,
John Conyers. Jr.
Member
06/13/00 TUE 12:03 FAX
001
U.S. Department of Justice
3
Office of Legislative Affairs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington D.C. 20530
FAX COVER SHEET
DATE:
TO:
LEANNE SHIMABUKURD: DEANNE BENOS
PHONE NO.
FAX NO.
456-7028
FROM:
JOSEPH GRAUPENSPERGER
PHONE NO.
514-3951
FAX NO.
305-2643
NO. OF PAGES:
4 (EXCLUDING COVER)
COMMENTS: The latest exchange between Hyde 2 Congers,
06/13/00 TUE 12:03 FAX
1002
36/12/00 MON 08:09 FAX
002
MANORITY mores
MEMOY, NYOE ILLINOIS CHAIRMAN
MINDRITY MEMOERS
& JAMES SENSENBRENNE JR WISCONSIN
JOHN CONYERS JR MICHIGAN
any MICOLLUM FINADA
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
BARNEY FRANK.MASSACHUSETTS
CCORCE GERAS MANNEYLVANIA
HOWARDL DOOMAN CALIFORNIA
-OWARD COALE WEATH CAROLINA
PICK SOUCHER VIRGINIA
LAMBAS SMITH TEXAS
Congress of the United States
JERHOLD NADLER. NEW YORK
ELTON CHLLEGLY CALIFORNIA
ROBERT -8088Y SCOTT MIRCINIA
CHARLES canjor FABRIOR
MELVINE wait NORTH CAROLINA
904 GOOCLATTE VACIN'S
201 LORGREN, CAUFORNIA
STEVE CHABC SWIP
BOB BARA ASDREW
trousc of Representations
SMEILA JACESON LEE. TEXAS
MAXINE WATERS. CALIFORNIA
WILLIAMS JENKINS TENNESSEE
MARTIN T MEEMAN. MASSACHUSETTS
ASA HUTCHINSON AMNANSAS
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
WILLIAM D. RELAHUNT MASSACHUSETTS
EDWARD A PEASE INDIANA
ROBERT WEXLER FLORIDA
CHAIS CANNON UTAM
STEVEN R. ROTUMAN NEW JERSEY
JAMESE ROCAN CALIFORNIA
2138 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TAMMY BALDWIN. WISCONSIN
LINOSEY CRAMAM SOUTHCAROLINA
ANTHONYD WEINER. NEW YORK
MARY BOND CAUFORNIA
SPENCER BACHUS ALASSMA
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6216
JOE SCAPEDROUGH FLORIDA
THOMAS € MOONEY SR
JULIAN ENTEIN
DAVID VITER LOUISIANA
GENERAL COUNSEL. CHIEF OF STAFF
(202) 225-3951
MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL
JON DUDAS
hilps www
AND STAFF DIRECTOR
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL STATE DIRECTOR
June 8. 2000
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Hyde:
I write to inquire again about your willingness to accept my gun safety proposal that
meets the criteria set out in your letter of May 12.
On May 12 - on the eve of the Million Mom March - you wrote expressing your
willingness to make several concessions in an effort to move our discussions forward on gun
safety legislation. Heartened by your willingness to compromise on several sticking points. I
replied immediately by sending you actual legislative language that incorporated the criteria you
outlined in your letter. Based on your spokesman's comments to the media that "(w)e'll have an
answer for Mr. Conyers sooner rather than later," Associated Press, May 16, 2000, I eagerly
awaited your reply. I felt especially motivated to reach an agreement on gun safety in response to
the overwhelming show of support for such measures by the 750,000 mothers and their families
who marched on Mother's Day.
Since I provided you with compromise language, our nation has witnessed another rash of
gun violence tragedies that are both senseless and preventable. Most notably, in Fort Worth,
Florida. a high school student shot his teacher on the last day of school. In the words of the
school's superintendent, "(i)f this gun had been locked, ladies and gentlemen, if this gun had a
lock on it, we wouldn't be here having this tragic conversation today." This could not make it
any clearer that the Congress's inaction on gun safety legislation not only is measured in days,
but in lives.
I have offered a reasonable compromise that translates your criteria into legislation. My
offer is still open. but I still have not heard from you. The Conference Committee has been
dormant for nearly one year. If you sign on to my proposed compromise, we would need only
one other Republican signature to have a House position and move this legislation forward.
Sincerely,
John. Conyers. Jr.
Member
003
06/13/00 TUE 12:03 FAX
002
AUD 08:60 ras
MAJORITY MEMBERS
MINORITY MEMBERS
HENRY J.HVNE ILLINOIS. CHAIRMAN
JCHN CONVERS. JR. MICHIGAN
#. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR. WISCONSIN
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
BARNEY FRANK, MASSACHUSETTS
BILL MCCOLLUM FLORIDA
HOWARD L. BERMAN. CALIFORNIA
GEORGE W GERAS PENNSYLVANIA
RICK BOUCHER, VIRGINIA
HOWARD COBLE NORTH CAROLINA
LAMAR $. EMITH, TEXAS
Congress of the United States
JERROLD NADLER. NEW YORK
ROBERT C. "BOOSY" SCOTT, VIRGINIA
ELTON GALLEGLY CALIFORNIA
MELVIN L. WATT. NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLEST. CANADY, FLORIDA
ZOE LOFGREN. CALIFORNIA
808 GOODLATTE. VIRGINIA
house of Representatives
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, TEXAS
STEVE CHABOT OHIC
MAXINE WATERS. CALIFORNIA
BOD BARR. GEORGIA
MARTIN T. MEEMAN MASSACHUEETTS
WILLIAM JENKINS TENNESSEE
ASA HUTCHINSON AHKANGAS
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
WILLIAM D. DELAMONT, MAYSACHUSETTS
ROBERT WEXLER FLORIDA
EDWARD A. PCASE. INDIANA
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN NEW JERSEY
CHRIS CANNON, JTAH
JAMES ROGAN. CALIFORNIA
2138 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TAMMY BALDWIN, WISCONSIN
ANTHONY D. WEINER NEW YORK
UNDER CRAMAN SOUTH CAROLINA
MARY BOND. CALIFORNIA
WASHINGTON. DC 20515-6218
SPENCER BACHUS ALABAMA
JOE SCARRDROUGH FLORIDA
TROMAS €. MOONEY. SH.
JULIAN EPSTEIN
DAVID VITTER LOUISIANA
GENERAL COUNSEL CHISE OF STAFF
(202) 225-3951
MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL
JON DUDAS
http://www.house.gov/ludiciary
AND STAFF DIRECTOR
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL-STAFF DIRECTOR
June 9, 2000
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, D.C.
Dear John:
Thank you for your letter of June 8, 2000, concerning gun safety legislation. I think it
might be helpful if I respond by summarizing the remaining differences between our most recent
proposals with an eye toward determining if we might yet be able to reach an agreement.
Definition of "gun show". Your proposal continues to define the term "gun show" as an
event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, and at which there are not
less than five vendors. In my most recent offer, as communicated in my letter to you of May 12,
2000, I also would require 50 or more firearms and not less than five vendors. I further proposed
modifying the "purpose of the event" language in my earlier proposal in favor of a definition that
covers all "events that are used to facilitate the sale of firearms." This new "facilitation"
language is intended to address your concern about flea markets being the occasion for gun sales,
while at the same time exempting a county fair or group yard sale which might unknowingly
have five persons selling firearms which, in the aggregate, total more than 50 firearms.
"Trigger language" (leading to the 3 day background review period). Your most recent
proposal provides that any "information obtained in the course of completing the background
check"that a person is ineligible may trigger the longer three day review period. As you recall, I
provided that any "official record" of possible ineligibility could trigger the longer review period.
I believe that this difference is minimal, and yet you have not responded to my last
communication in which I explained the rationale for my language. I look forward to your
response on this point.
Instant check registrants. Your most recent proposal only allows current or retired law
enforcement officers to serve as instant check registrants. My proposal allows anyone to be an
instant check registrant so long as they meet the same requirements that are imposed on federally
licensed vendors (including passing a background check). My proposal also imposes the same
06/13/00 TUE 12:04 FAX
003
The Honorable John Conyers
June 9, 2000
Page Two
criminal liability on instant check registrants that is imposed on federally licensed vendors. The
likely outcome of your proposal to limit instant check registrants to current or retired law
enforcement officers is that few, if any, persons will become instant check registrants. This, in
turn, could have a substantial detrimental effect on gun shows. Again, I remain open to
considering additional provisions that will further ensure the fitness and lawful conduct of instant
check registrants.
Used firearm serial numbers. Your proposal requires in the case of used firearms, that the
federally licensed vendor or instant check registrant who performs the background check transmit
the make, model, and serial number of the used firearm to the manufacturer (or to the Secretary
of the Treasury if the manufacturer has discontinued business). While I personally would be
comfortable with such a requirement, I am concerned that such a new record-keeping
requirement would make our agreement even more difficult to sell to a majority of House
Members.
Immediate destruction of records. And finally, your proposal provides that the NICS
records of approved purchasers may be retained for up to 90 days. This is the same time period
proposed in a pending FBI regulation to reduce the record retention period from the current 180
days. As I have previously indicated, with regard to the immediate destruction of records for
approved purchasers, it may be that you and I will ultimately have to agree to disagree. I
personally believe that retaining records for a 90 day period would be useful for law
enforcement; however, such a provision would be extremely threatening to many Americans who
would see such a policy as a troubling threat to the privacy interests of law-abiding citizens and a
possible prelude to longer or even permanent record retention. I would also note again that
majorities in the House and the Senate have both voted for the immediate destruction provision
during this Congress.
As you have acknowledged on a number of occasions, and most recently in your letter of
yesterday, I have made many concessions over the course of our negotiations. Through it all, I
have had to bear in mind the varied views of members on both sides of the aisle with an eye
toward reaching an agreement that might gamer at least 218 votes. As you know, on April 21st, I
sent a letter to the President offering comprehensive legislation that includes reasonable gun
safety provisions, including an effective background checks at guns shows, gun safety locks, a
juvenile Brady provision, a ban on juvenile possession of assault weapons, and a ban on large
capacity clips. That proposal has the support of a majority of the House Republican conferees on
gun related provisions. If you and just two other Democratic conferees would support that
proposal, we could advance the debate with an offer to Senate conferees.
06/13/00 TUE 12:04 FAX
005
06/13/00 TUE 09:27 FAX
009
The Honorable John Conyers
June 9, 2000
Page Three
I remain open to any recommendations that might lead to needed improvements.
Sincerely,
Herry Henry J. Hyde
Chairman
TUE
09:02
FAX
MAJORITY MEMBERS
MINORITY MEMBERS
MENRY J. HYDE, ILLINOIS. CHAIRMAN
JOHN CONVERS. JR.. MICHIGAN
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER. JR., WISCONSIN
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
BARNEY FRANK. MASSACHUSETTS
BILL McCOLLUM, FLORIDA
HOWARD L BERMAN. CALIFORNIA
GEORGE W. GEKAS. PENNSYLVANIA
RICK BOUCHER, VIRGINIA
HOWARD COBLE, NORTH CAROLINA
ELTON GALLEGLY. CALIFORNIA
Congress of the United States
JERROLD NADLER. NEW YORK
LAMAR $. SMITH. TEXAS
ROBERT C. "BOSEY" SCOTT, VIRGINIA
MELVIN L. WATY. NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLES T. CANADY. FLORIDA
ZOE LOFGREN. CALIFORNIA
BOB GOODLATTE VIRGINIA
STEVE CHABOT, OHIO
house of Representations
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, TEXAS
MAXINE WATERS. CALIFORNIA
DOB BARR, GEORGIA
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM L. JENKINS. TENNESSEE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, MASSACHUSETTS
ASA HUTCHINSON. ARKANSAS
ROBERT WEXLER. FLORIDA
EDWARD A. PEASE, INDIANA
STEVEN A. ROTHMAN, NEW JERSEY
CHRIS CANNON. UTAH
2138 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TAMMY BALDWIN, WISCONSIN
JAMES E. ROGAN. CALIFORNIA
ANTHONY D. WEINER, NEW YORK
LINDSEY GKAHAM. SOUTH CAROLINA
MARY BONO. CALIFORNIA
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6216
SPENCER BACHUS, ALABAMA
JOE SCARBOROUGH. FLORIDA
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR,
JULIAN EPSTEIN
DAVID VITTER, LOUISIANA
GENERAL COUNSEL - CHIEF OF STAFF
(202) 225-3951
MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL
http://www.hause.gov/judiciary
AND STAFF DIRECTOR
JON OUDAS
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL - STAFF DIRECTOR
June 9, 2000
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, D.C.
Dear John:
Thank you for your letter of June 8, 2000, concerning gun safety legislation. I think it
might be helpful if I respond by summarizing the remaining differences between our most recent
proposals with an eye toward determining if we might yet be able to reach an agreement.
Definition of "gun show". Your proposal continues to define the term "gun show" as an
event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, and at which there are not
less than five vendors. In my most recent offer, as communicated in my letter to you of May 12,
2000, I also would require 50 or more firearms and not less than five vendors. I further proposed
modifying the "purpose of the event" language in my earlier proposal in favor of a definition that
covers all "events that are used to facilitate the sale of firearms." This new "facilitation"
language is intended to address your concern about flea markets being the occasion for gun sales,
while at the same time exempting a county fair or group yard sale which might unknowingly
have five persons selling firearms which, in the aggregate, total more than 50 firearms.
"Trigger language" (leading to the 3 day background review period). Your most recent
proposal provides that any "information obtained in the course of completing the background
check"that a person is ineligible may trigger the longer three day review period. As you recall, I
provided that any "official record" of possible ineligibility could trigger the longer review period.
I believe that this difference is minimal, and yet you have not responded to my last
communication in which I explained the rationale for my language. I look forward to your
response on this point.
Instant check registrants. Your most recent proposal only allows current or retired law
enforcement officers to serve as instant check registrants. My proposal allows anyone to be an
instant check registrant so long as they meet the same requirements that are imposed on federally
licensed vendors (including passing a background check). My proposal also imposes the same
06/13/00 TUE 09:02 FAX
The Honorable John Conyers
June 9, 2000
Page Two
criminal liability on instant check registrants that is imposed on federally licensed vendors. The
likely outcome of your proposal to limit instant check registrants to current or retired law
enforcement officers is that few, if any, persons will become instant check registrants. This, in
turn, could have a substantial detrimental effect on gun shows. Again, I remain open to
considering additional provisions that will further ensure the fitness and lawful conduct of instant
check registrants.
Used firearm serial numbers. Your proposal requires in the case of used firearms, that the
federally licensed vendor or instant check registrant who performs the background check transmit
the make, model, and serial number of the used firearm to the manufacturer (or to the Secretary
of the Treasury if the manufacturer has discontinued business). While I personally would be
comfortable with such a requirement, I am concerned that such a new record-keeping
requirement would make our agreement even more difficult to sell to a majority of House
Members.
Immediate destruction of records. And finally, your proposal provides that the NICS
records of approved purchasers may be retained for up to 90 days. This is the same time period
proposed in a pending FBI regulation to reduce the record retention period from the current 180
days. As I have previously indicated, with regard to the immediate destruction of records for
approved purchasers, it may be that you and I will ultimately have to agree to disagree. I
personally believe that retaining records for a 90 day period would be useful for law
enforcement; however, such a provision would be extremely threatening to many Americans who
would see such a policy as a troubling threat to the privacy interests of law-abiding citizens and a
possible prelude to longer or even permanent record retention. I would also note again that
majorities in the House and the Senate have both voted for the immediate destruction provision
during this Congress.
As you have acknowledged on a number of occasions, and most recently in your letter of
yesterday, I have made many concessions over the course of our negotiations. Through it all, I
have had to bear in mind the varied views of members on both sides of the aisle with an eye
toward reaching an agreement that might garner at least 218 votes. As you know, on April 21st, I
sent a letter to the President offering comprehensive legislation that includes reasonable gun
safety provisions, including an effective background checks at guns shows, gun safety locks, a
juvenile Brady provision, a ban on juvenile possession of assault weapons, and a ban on large
capacity clips. That proposal has the support of a majority of the House Republican conferees on
gun related provisions. If you and just two other Democratic conferees would support that
proposal, we could advance the debate with an offer to Senate conferees.
004
06/13/00 TUE 09:02 FAX
The Honorable John Conyers
June 9, 2000
Page Three
I remain open to any recommendations that might lead to needed improvements.
Sincerely,
Hamy Henry J. Hyde
Chairman
06/15/00 .THU' 13:14 FAX
001
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Committee on the Judiciary
Democratic Staff Office
B-351-C Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
FACSIMILE COVER LETTER
TO:
Deanne
FAX NO: 456-7028
# PAGES:
(including this page)
FROM:
PERRY APELBAUM
SAMPAK GARG
SCOTT DEUTCHMAN
MICHONE JOHNSON
CAROLYN DONNELLY
TED KALO
CORI FLAM
KEENAN KELLER
ANTHONY FOXX
MATT NOSANCHUK
TERESA VEST
COMMENTS:
If parts of this transmission are unclear or transmission
was faulted, please call: (202) 225-6906.
4-9181
002
06/15/00 THU 13:14 FAX
MAJORITY MEMBERS
MINORITY MEMBERS
HENRY J HYDE. ILLINOIS, CHAIRMAN
JOHN CONYERS. JR.. MICHIGAN
F JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. WISCONSIN
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
BARNEY FRANK, MASSACHUSETTS
BILL McCOLLUM, FLORIDA
HOWARD L. BERMAN. CALIFORNIA
GEORGE W. GAKAS. PENNSYLVANIA
RICK BOUCHER, VIRGINIA
HOWARD COBLE NORTH CAROLINA
ELTON GALLEGLY, CALIFORNIA
Congress of the United States
JERROLD NAOLER, NEW YORK
LAMAR S. SMITH. TEXAS
ROBERT C. "BOBBY" SCOTT, VIRGINIA
MELVIN L. WATT, NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLES T. CANADY, FLORIDA
ZOE LOFGREN, CALIFORNIA
SOB COODLATTE, VIRGINIA
STEVE CHABOT. OHIO
house of Representatives
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, TEXAS
MAXINE WATERS. CALIFORNIA
608 BARR, GEORGIA
MARTIN T. MEEHAN. MA88ACHUSETTS
WILLIAM L. JENKINS. TENNESSEE
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT. MASSACHUSETTS
ASA HUTCHINSON. ARKANSAS
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ROBERT WEXLER. FLORIDA
EDWARD A. PEASE. INDIANA
STEVEN A. ROTHMAN. NEW JERSEY
CHRIS CANNON, UTAH
TAMMY BALDWIN, WISCONSIN
2138 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
JAMES E, ROGAN. CALIFORNIA
ANTHONY D. WEINER, NEW YORK
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, SOUTH CAROLINA
MARY BOND. CALIFORNIA
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6216
SPENCER BACHUS, ALABAMA
THOMAS E. MOONEY. SR.
JOE SCARBOROUGH, FLORIDA
JULIAN EPSTEIN
DAVID VITTER. LOUISIANA
GENERAL COUNSEL CHIEF OF STAFF
(202) 225-3951
MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL
http://www.house.gov/judiciary
AND STAFF DIRECTOR
JON DUDAS
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL STAFF DIRECTOR
June 15, 2000
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your letter of June 9 responding to my May 12 proposed gun safety
legislative compromise. I am attaching a draft gun safety conference report that incorporates
comments and proposals made in your most recent letter. If you would sign on to my
compromise, we would need only one other Republican signature to report a gun safety
conference report back to the full House. My current proposal makes the following additional
concessions beyond that which I've already offered to you in my previous letters.
(1) Narrowing Language in Gun Show Definition - Although my proposal would
allow for the inclusion of precisely the purpose language you suggest in your letter, I remain
concerned that purpose language could be misinterpreted to allow gun sales without background
checks at gun shows and other events where many guns are sold. If indeed the stated rationale
for this language is to protect "yard sales," I am struggling to understand why we need such
language. While I have seen clocks, baby clothes, stuffed animals, children's books, and lawn
furniture at yard sales, I have never heard of - much less attended - a yard sale where 50 or more
guns are sold by five or more firearm vendors. I would appreciate any examples of such yard
sales that you can provide. In the meantime, however, I am willing to set aside my concerns and
accept your compromise language.
(2) Raising Numerical Threshold in Gun Show Definition - The Senate-passed gun
show bill would have defined a "gun show" as any event at which 50 or more guns are offered
for sale, transfer or exchange. My proposal (in addition to the limitation described above), would
limit requiring background checks by unlicensed persons to events where 50 or more guns are
offered for sale, transfer or exchange and where there are 5 or more firearm vendors. While I
remain troubled by the fact that events where four vendors sell hundreds of guns would be
excluded from background checks, I will not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good
and am prepared to accept this compromise language.
003
06/15/00 THU 13:15 FAX
The Honorable Henry Hyde
Page Two
June 15, 2000
(3) 24-Hour Time Limit on Background Checks at Gun Shows - The Senate-passed
gun show bill would have allowed law enforcement authorities to take the same amount of time
to complete checks at gun shows as gun stores, up to three business days. My proposal makes a
significant concession by limiting background checks at gun shows to 24 hours unless a "red
flag" is raised. In those cases, law enforcement authorities could take additional time to
complete the check, but in no event could the NICS delay the transfer of a firearm for more than
three business days. Your letter asserts that the language you use to describe "red flags" comes
from current law. In fact, my language precisely mirrors the language used to describe "red
flags" in current law. 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(4). As you have acknowledged in the past, purchasers
for whom background checks take more than 24 hours are 20 times more likely to be prohibited
purchasers. It would, therefore, be unwise to force law enforcement authorities to play "beat the
clock" to investigate some "red flags," while allowing up to three business days for others, as I
believe your proposal does. Since we both want the same end result - keeping guns out of the
hands of questionable buyers - I see no reason for departing from the existing statutory language
to craft the new provision.
(4) Allowing Instant Check Registrants to Conduct Background Checks - In
response to your concern that there some buyers at gun shows may be slightly inconvenienced by
having to wait in line for background checks, my proposal compromises significantly from the
Senate provision by allowing for the use of instant check registrants, a new largely unregulated
entity empowered to utilize a federal apparatus heretofore limited to federal licensed dealers to
conduct background checks. Although I remained concerned that we not create a new class of
background checkers who lack the same the credentials and expertise as licensees and do not
have the same deterrents against wrongdoing as licensed dealers, I reluctantly will agree to drop
the language you found objectionable requiring that the registrants be current or retired law
enforcement officers. However, I would limit the use of instant check registrants to events where
there are not enough licensed dealers available to make background checks easily available.
(5) Preventing the Creation of a Gun Registry I understand that, while you are
personally comfortable with the exceedingly short term (90 day) retention of background check
records, you are fearful that such a provision might trigger the paranoia of the NRA and its allies
in Congress about the creation of a gun registry. As the Department of Justice has explained to
both the majority and minority last summer, the instant check system simply cannot work
without some records retention for a limited period of time. Audits are necessary to check
against wholesale fraud and conspiracies to circumvent the Brady law. After the DOJ briefings, I
think both you and your staff appreciate that.
However, in response to your continuing political concerns regarding the provision, I
previously proposed empowering the GAO to audit NICS to ensure that records of approved gun
sales are not being used to create a registry. Because you still suggest that this is not enough. I
06/15/00 THU 13:15-FAX
J.
004
The Honorable Henry Hyde
Page Three
June 15, 2000
have gone one step further by adding language to create an independent board whose
membership will be bipartisan and would include government officials as well as representatives
of advocacy organizations. The board could, of course, include the NRA, and it would meet to
evaluate whether records of approved gun sales are being used to create a gun registry.
(6) Disallowing Government Retention of Tracing Records - In response to your
concern about triggering unjustified paranoia of the NRA and its allies in Congress about the
government retaining serial numbers (without any additional identifying information) in order to
trace guns used in crimes, I have proposed requiring gun manufacturers to retain the serial
numbers.
(7) Let's Step Outside Transactions - While I continue to believe that all gun show
transactions should be covered by background checks, in the spirit of compromise, I have
reluctantly agreed to your language which could exclude some offers to sell guns at gun shows
from background check requirements.
(8) Enforcement Against Gun Criminals - While I continue to argue that - in addition
to gun safety laws - we need rigorous gun law enforcement, I will, in order to reach consensus,
reluctantly agree to your proposal that significantly cuts (in some cases, by half) the sentences
that can be imposed on gun criminals from the sentence lengths in the Senate-passed gun safety
bill.
(9) Fees for Background Checks - While your language prohibiting a user fee would
discourage states from participating in the instant check system, I am, in order to reach
consensus, reluctantly willing to accept your language prohibiting NICS fees for background
checks (although I continue to find it ironic that opponents of a user fees are themselves the
putative advocates for states' rights in other instances).
These are nine significant further concessions to what is admittedly an exceedingly
modest bill, the Lautenberg amendment, to put an obvious, common-sense proposition - closing
the gun show loophole - into law. I believe that there are the votes in the House to pass my
proposal. The McCarthy amendment, which mirrored the Lautenberg amendment, failed by only
21 votes - and that was after the Dingell amendment passed by a mere six votes. In addition to
picking up your vote, I hope that you would use your considerable influence and power as
Chairman to garner a meager 20 additional votes on the floor. We could then have the bill that
American mothers and their families deserve.
As I stated to you in my last letter, the cost of inaction on this bill is measured not only in
days, but also in lives. I would, therefore, appreciate your prompt response to this offer so that
we can pass meaningful gun safety legislation before the of election-year political gamesmanship
make it impossible to do so. Furthermore, I believe that your considerable influence can be used,
06/15/00 THU 13:16 FAX
5
005
The Honorable Henry Hyde
Page Four
June 15, 2000
should you so elect, to successfully persuade Chairman Hatch to convene a conference which has
been laying dormant for ten months.
Sincerely,
John. Jr.
Member
05/12/00 FRI 16:08 FAX
001
THE WHITE HOUSE
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
HOUSE LIAISON
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
112 East Wing
Office phone: 456-6620
Office fax: 456-2604
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
DATE:
5/12/00
To:
Leanne Shimabukuro Heane Benos
FAX:
6-7028
PHONE:
FROM:
X
BRODERICK JOHNSON
JOSH ACKIL
LISA KOUNTOUPES
ERICA MORRIS
MARK MAGANA
BRIAN MASON
MARTY HOFFMANN
TANEESHA JOHNSON
Comments:
PAGE ONE OF
05/12/00 FRI 16:08 FAX
002
05/12/00 FRI 16:13 FAX
002
MINORITY MEMBERS
MAJORITY MEMBERS
JOHN CONYERS. JK MICRIBAN
MONRY J HYDE. ILLINOIS CHAIRMAN
BARNEY FRANK MASSACRUNUTTA
c JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.. WISCONSIN
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
HOWARD (IFRMAN CALIFORNIA
BILL McCOLUM. LORIDA
RICK BOUCHER VIRGINIA
GEORGE W. GEKAS. PENNSYLVANIA
LAMAN S SMITH, TEXAS
Congress of the Anited States
JFRROLD NADLEM. NEW THIS
HOWARD COBLE. NORTH CAROLINA
HOBERT C. 8023 scall VIRGINIA
MELVIN , WATT. NORTH AROLINA
ELTON GALLEGLY CALLFORNIA
zoe LOFONEN. LA TORNIA
CHARLES T CANADY FLORIDA
SHEILA JACKSON LEC. TEXAS
ROB GOODLATE VIRGINIA
STEVE CHABOT. OHIO
house of Representations
MAXINE WATERS. call DONG
MARTIN T MEEHAN MASSACHUSE TTA
due CARR GEORGIA
WILLIAM DELAMUNT MASSACHUSETTA
WILLIAM JANKINS. TENNESSEE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ROBERT WEXLEA PLORIDA
ASA TOMINSON ARKANSAN
STEVEN A. ROTHMAN NEW JERSEY
EDWARD a PEASE. INDIANA
TAMMY BALDWIN WISCONSIN
GHRIS CANNON. UTAH
2138 RAYBURN House OFFICE BUILDING
ANTHONY D. WEINER. NLW YORK
JAMBS a. ROGAN. CALIFORNIA
LINDSTY CRAHAM. SOUTH CAROLINA
MAHY BONG. CALIFORNIA
WASHINGTON,DC 20515-5216
SPENCEM BACHUS. ALABAMA
THOMAS E. MODNEY, SR.
JULIAN EASTEIN
JOS SCAMBOROUGH FLORIDA
DAVID VOICE LOUISIANA
GENERAL COUNSEL- CHIEF OF STAPP
(202) 225-3951
MINORITY CHIBP COUNSEL
http://www.housc.gov/udiciary
AND STALL DIRECTOR
JON DUDAS
DEFUTY GENERAL COUNGEL - STAFF DIRECTOR
May 12, 2000
President Bill Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Please permit me to share with you the most recent correspondence with Rep. John
Conyers, the Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, who wrote to me on May 4th
regarding our continuing effort to forge compromise gun safety legislation.
As you will see by my letter to John, I have made additional modifications to my
proposed compromise in an effort move forward with this important legislation:
First, I am prepared to drop the provision in my original proposal that allows for certain
firearms shipments by federally licensed vendors and instant check registrants.
Second, I am committed to changing the definition of a "gun show" by substantially
modifying the purpose-of-the-event language to ensure that all events that constitute a gun show
are subject to Brady background checks.
As you are aware, a majority of Republican House conferees on gun safety legislation
have signed onto my proposed compromise. I need three Democratic members of the conference
committee to pledge support for this proposal so that we may formally present the compromise to
the Senate. It is my hope that you will do all in your power to help us break this logjam and
encourage members of your own party to help us enact meaningful gun safety legislation this
year.
Sincerely,
HungHyee if
HJH:s
05/12/00 FRI 16:09 FAX
003
05/12/00 FRI 16:13 FAX
0
003
MAJORITY MEMBERS
MINORITY MEMBERS
HENRY J. HYDE. ILLINOIS, CHAIRMAN
JOHN CONVERS JR MICHIGAN
F, JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., WISCONSIN
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
BANNEY TRANK MASSACHUBETTS
BILL MICOLLUM, FLORIDA
HOWARD L DERMAN CALIFORNIA
GEORGE W CSKAS, PENNSYLVANIA
RICK BOUCHER VIRGINIA
HOWARD CODLE. NORTH CAROLINA
CITON GALLEGLY. CALIFORNIA
Congress of the United States
JERROLD NADLER. NEW YORK
LAMAR S. 3MITH. TEXAS
ROBENT ( "MOBEY SCOTT: VIRGINIA
MELVIN L WATT NORTH CAROLINA
CHAMIS T. CANADY. FLORIDA
ZOP LORGREN CALIFORNIA
BOB DOODLATTE VIRGINIA
STEVE CHADOT. OHIO
house of Representations
SHICILA JACKSON LEL. TEXAS
MAXINE WATERS. CALIFORNIA
ROB BARR GECHGIA
MARTIN , MEEMAN MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM JENXING. INNESSEE
WILLIAM D. MASSACHUSETT:-
ASA HUTCHINSON, ARKANSAS
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ROBERT WEXL(4, FLORIDA
EDWARD - PEASE. INDIANA
STEVEN R ROTHMAN NEW JERSEY
CHRIS CAMNON UTAH
2136 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TANDMY BALOWIN WISCONSIN
JAMES E. ROGAN. CALIFORNIA
ANTHONY D. WEINER NEW YORK
LINDSEY a, GRAHAM, SOUTH CAROLINA
MARY BONO. CALIFORNIA
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6216
GOINCER BACHUS. ALABAMA
JOE SCARBOROUGH. FLEMODA
THOMAS E MODNEY. 311
JULIAN FPSTEIN
DAVID VITTER. LOUISIANA
CENFRAL COUNSEL CHIFF OF STAH
(202) 225-3951
MINORITY CHIE COUNSEL
JON DUDAD
http:/wwww.huuse.gov/udiciary
AND STAFF DIRECTOR
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL STAFF DIRECTOR
May 12, 2000
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear John:
Thank you for your letter of May 4, 2000, concerning gun safety legislation.
I have noted again your concerns about my proposed use of the term "official records" for
triggering the longer three-day background check review period. I am increasingly of the view
that we are talking past one another on this issue and that no real difference exists regarding how
we want the 24-hour/three business day review to operate. We both agree that there should be a
general requirement that all background checks at gun shows be accomplished within 24 hours.
We both further agree that the 24-hour limit should give way to a longer, up-to-three-business-
day review period when the would-be purchaser has not been cleared within 24 hours due to the
existence of information in the National Instant Check System (NICS) which indicates that the
would-be purchaser might be ineligible under the Brady law. While I remain open to modified
language which best accomplishes this outcome, I do want to explain more fully the rationale
that led to the use of the term "official records."
My initial proposal in our negotiations, based on discussions with the FBI's NICS
Program Office. provided that the trigger for the longer, three-business day review period would
simply be arrest records. This is because, according to the NICS Program Office, the only kind
of record in the NICS database that is not a final disposition record but that still might indicate
that a would-be purchaser is ineligible, is an arrest record: if the arrest led to a felony conviction
or a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction, and there is an available record of such a
conviction, then such a person would be ineligible. On the other hand, under current law and
under your proposal, an arrest record by itself is not sufficient basis for prohibiting a sale from
occurring. This ambiguity, in my judgment, necessitated the three-day review.
You expressed concern that having arrest records as the trigger for the three-day review
was too narrow and that other records of possible Brady prohibitions might be in the NICS
system and should also trigger the longer review period. You expressed the concern that as
states continue to improve their capabilities to enter information of possible Brady
disqualifications into the NICS system, a greater variety of types of records would be part of the
background check, and hence, arrest records might not be the only available indicator of a
purchaser possibly being ineligible. I thought your concern had merit; therefore, I broadened the
trigger beyond simply arrest records to include any other official record in the NICS database of
a possible Brady violation.
05/12/00 FRI 16:09 FAX
1
004
05/12/00 FRI 16:14 FAX
004
Honorable John Conyers
May 12, 2000
Page 2
In opposing the use of the term "official record." you urged in your letter of May 4 that
"we should use the plain and unambiguous language of current law." I agree: that's why I used
the term "official record." As you know, the section of the 1993 Brady law that established the
NICS system is codified as a note at the conclusion of section 922 of title 18, United States
Code. You will note that Subsection (e)(1), which directs the establishment of the NICS
database, is headed by the subtitle, "Authority to obtain official information." The NICS system
has always been a database of official records, meaning relevant records submitted to it by
government agencies. It has never been contemplated that "official" information or records
require "that records from state and local law enforcement be notarized, properly signed or
printed on letterhead," as you suggest in your letter. Rather, it simply includes all information
relevant to a determination of ineligibility under Brady that has been properly provided by a
federal, state or local agency. This includes non-finalized restraining orders and any
communication from courts and law enforcement authorities regarding mentally disturbed
persons.
You have again expressed concern about the proposed definition of "gun show" in my
proposal. Specifically, you write that the "purpose" language would make the entire gun
background check regimen apply to almost no one." That is simply not the case. It might be the
case if the purpose-of-the-event test was subjectively detenmined: that is, each event would be
left free to declare whether or not its primary purpose is to facilitate the sale of firearms. This,
however, is plainly not how the purpose test would work. Rather. it would be an objective test.
As you appreciate, the challenge facing us is to develop a definition that covers all events that
constitute actual gun shows, without unintentionally covering all manner of private transactions
and imposing the regulatory requirements and civil and criminal liability on parties involved in
such transactions. To that end, I am prepared to modify the purpose language to ensure that
events that are used to facilitate the sale of firearms are included in the definition of gun show. I
remain prepared to work with you to ensure an effective and workable gun show definition.
I believe I can put the high capacity ammunition clip ban issue and the issue concerning
the background check for those under indictment to rest once and for all. I continue to support
the exact language regarding the ammunition clip ban that Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and I
offered on the House floor in June.
While I may have floated modified language during our past months of negotiations, I
remain supportive of the language T offered in June, and would like to see it become law. And
concerning those under indictment receiving the longer, three-day background check, you will
find my most recent draft proposal clearly provides the three-day review for those under
indictment. I remain convinced that the three-day review should occur anytime there are records
that indicate that receipt of a firearm might violate Subsections 922(g) or (n).
I am also prepared to drop the provision in my proposal that allows for certain firearms
shipments by federally licensed vendors and instant check registrants. As you know, current law
already permits the interstate shipment of firearms from one federally licenced vendor to another.
I continue to believe that the regulatory controls and criminal penalties that cover federally
licensed vendors and instant check registrants are sufficient to ensure that any shipments of
firearms made by them would be as safe and secure as shipments of firearms under current law.
05/12/00 FRI 16:10 FAX
005
05/12/00 FRI 16:14 FAX
1
005
Honorable John Conyers
May 12. 2000
Page 3
Nevertheless, my interest in reaching an agreement with you leaves me prepared to simply
maintain current law on this point.
Finally, with regard to the immediate destruction of records for approved purchasers, it
may be that you and I will ultimately have to agree to disagree. I do not dispute your contention
that retaining such records for a prolonged period may be useful in various ways for law
enforcement; however, I believe that any such utility would be more than outweighed by the
concerns of law-abiding citizens that the Federal government was retaining certain personal
information about them in connection with their lawful purchase of a firearm. I would also note
that majorities in the House and the Senate have both voted for the immediate destruction
provision during this Congress.
John, I continue to hope that we might be able to reach an agreement on comprehensive
legislation that includes reasonable gun safety provisions, including an effective background
check at guns shows, gun safety locks, a juvenile Brady provision, a ban on juvenile possession
of assault weapons, and a ban on large capacity clips. I believe that a review of our
correspondence shows how far I am prepared to move to reach an agreement; 1 have yet to see
any such movement on your part. John, do you really want to forge a compromise?
I remain open to any recommendations that might lead to needed improvements.
Sincerely,
Hinj HYDE
cc: President. William J. Clinton
05/12/00 FRI 16:10 FAX
1
006
05/12/00 FRI 16:14 FAX
J.
006
MINORITY MEMBERS
MAJORITY L'YMBER'S
JOHN CONVERS. JII. MICHIGAN
HENRY NYLE ILLINOIS. CHAIRMAN
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
BARNEY FRANK. MASSACHUSETTS
F JAMES JR WINE PNSIN
HOWARD L. BERMAN. CALIFORNIA
FLORIDA
RICK ADUCHER. VIRGINIA
СЕОРЦЕ JAAS PENSYLVANIA
LAMARS SMITH TERMS
Congress of the United States
JERROLD NAME NP YORK
MONARD
ROBERT C BOMMY SCOTT VIRGINIA
MELVINE WATI. NORTH CARDLINA
E: GALLEGEY CALIFORNIA
206 LONGREN CALEORNIA
CHARI T CANADY. FLORILIA
house of Representations
SHELLA JACKSON LEE TEXAS
BEIM GRODLATTE VIPGINIA
MAXINE WATERS. CA FORNA
','L JR CHAROI 1990
MARTIN T MEDIAN MASSACHUSETTS
BOB UAIIA DEORDIA
WILLIAM C. DELAHON I MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM JENNING "FNNESSEE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ROBERT WENLER. FLORIDA
ARA RUTI,HINSON. ARKANSAS
STEVEN , BOTHMAN NEW JERSEY
FOWARD A PEASE INDIANA
TAMMY SALDWIN. WISCONSIN
CMFIS CANNON VTA-
2138 RAYOURN House OFFICE BUILDING
ANTHONY 0 WRINER. NEW YORK
JAMES E ROGAN CALIFORNIA
LINOSEY 0 GRAHAM. SOUTH CARDI INA
NAILY BOND. CALIFORNIA
WASHINGTON, DC 20516-6216
SPENCE BACHUU. AI ABAMA
THOMAS E MOONEY SR
IOLIAN EPSIFIN
JOE SCARBOROUGH FLORIDA
ORM,RAL COUNSEL CHE or STATE
(202) 225-3961
MINDARITY CHIEF COUNSEL
DAVID VITTER LOUISIANA
htp:/www.house.goviurdimiary
AND STAFF CIRECTOR
JON DUDAS
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL STAFF DIRECTOR
May 4, 2000
RECEIVED
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, Chairman
MAY 0 4 2000
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Hyde:
I am in receipt of your April 14 letter concerning gun safety legislation.
At the outset, I would note that no one is more interested in enacting meaningful gun safety
legislation than I am. As you know, I am on record as strongly supporting the "Lautenberg"
amendment which passed the Senate. However, as I have repeatedly stated to you, I would be and am
willing to negotiate a compromise from that position, so long as the legislation is not a sham, does not
weaken current law, and truly shuts down, rather than perpetuates, the gun show loophole to the
Brady law. It is in this spirit that I have proposed to you language requiring that the vast majority of
gun show Brady checks occur within 24 hours, an important departure from the Lautenberg language.
Notwithstanding your professed commitment to closing the gun show loophole, I am
concerned that the House Republican Leadership is the principal obstacle to enacting meaningful gun
safety legislation. I need not remind you that it was the House Republican Leaders who have said they
would not allow a vote in their "pro-gun House" on any bill that departed from NRA-authored
proposals. I also continue to be frustrated by the failure of the Majority to convene a meeting of the
juvenile justice conference, so that our positions can be aired openly and debated in a public forum.
As for your last two "compromise" proposals, I am profoundly concerned by their continuing
fidelity to loopholes, and by the manner in which you have proposed them to me. Both proposals
were released to the press, rather than to me. Both proposals parrot the loopholes in your earlier
draft which would effectively allow in some cases for criminals to get guns at gun shows. I've
explained these problems to you in repeated letters the substance of which I might add you have
never refuted. And amazingly to me, these tactics were used just one day after you signed a joint
letter to Chairman Hatch stating that "(w)e have pledged to each other to begin anew negotiations."
Yet, the very next day, you wrote to the President that "(Representative Conyers and the Democratic
Leadership) have again rejected meaningful negotiations." Yet, less than 24 hours later, you made
such a declaration without a single conversation with me or my staff
05/12/00 FRI 16:10 FAX
007
05/12/00 FRI 16:15 FAX
007
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde
Page 2
May 4. 2000
As to the substance of your April 14 "compromise," I am disappointed that it contains all of the
loopholes and drawbacks as your November 4 proposal. Among these loopholes are the following:
1.
The Fugitives, Felons and Stalkers Loophole: Your discussion of your "official
records" loophole appears to miss the point completely. All we are asking for is that we
preserve the same language that is already in the Brady law to describe when law
enforcement can take more time to finish background checks. Current law allows up to
three business days to investigate any information available to the system that indicates
that receipt of the firearm may violate federal or state law. The purpose of this leeway is
to allow up to three business days to investigate - to the fullest extent of the law - - the S
percent of purchasers who are 20 times more likely than the average purchaser to be
fugitives, felons or stalkers. The law permitting this minimal period of time does not
require that records from state and local law enforcement be notarized, properly signed or
printed on letterhead. It would seem obvious that, if our objective is not to weaken
current law, we should use the plain and unambiguous language in current law that has
worked to prevent over 500,000 felons, fugitives and stalkers from purchasing guns.
2.
The Gun Show By 2 Different Name Loophole: Your definition of gun show, derived
from the NRA-drafted Hatch-Craig amendment and rejected by the Senate, is so tortured
that it would not even apply to most gun shows, so long as they sell items other than guns
such as camping equipment, survival gear and knives. While you consistently contend that
your definition of gun show is any event where 50 or more guns are sold and there are five
or more vendors (a definition I could, in a spirit of compromise, agree to), you also
include "purpose" language that would make the entire gun show background check
regimen apply to almost no one.
3.
Meaningless Ammunition Clip Ban Loophole: I am also frustrated that you continue
to assert that there is agreement on all the other gun safety provisions. Your large
capacity ammunition clip ban strikes essential language that was in the amendment you
offered on the House floor and renders this provision completely meaningless. We never
discussed changes to this important provision and I am disappointed that you are backing
away from your own amendment.
I am also baffled that you view this proposal as progress when in fact it is weaker than
your November 4 proposal. Every time we appear to be closer to agreement, I am concerned that
you push the goal posts backward and make further concessions to the NRA and your leadership.
In my judgment, your April 14 proposal takes the following steps backward:
Guns for Murder Suspects Loophole: Your November 4 proposal explicitly guaranteed
a background check of up to three days for "official records" that indicate a person is
J.
008
05/12/00 FRI 16:11 FAX
06/12/00 FRI 16:15 FAX
008
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde
Page 3
May 4, 2000
under indictment but your April 14 proposal does not. It would, therefore, allow persons
under indictment for murder, rape, child molestation and other potentially dangerous
persons to purchase guns at gun shows if a background check could not be completed
within 24 hours.¹
Bad Apple Gun Dealer Loophole: Unlike your November 4 proposal. your April 14
proposal calls for immediate destruction of Brady background check records, This
provision alone would prevent effective enforcement of the Brady law by removing one of
the only means of holding fraudulent gün dealers accountable. Recent cases have been
brought against licensed dealers who have entered false information into the Instant Check
system in order to fraudulently sell guns to criminals. Without an ability to compare the
information sent to the Instant Check system with a dealer's records, we would provide an
invitation to fraud that would permit thousands of criminals the ability to evade
background checks and purchase guns. On balance, is the NRA's paranoia about any
recordkeeping really worth letting criminals get guns and criminal gun dealers get away?
Lee Harvey Oswald Loophole: Unlike your November 4 proposal, your April 14
proposal substantially weakens the ban on interstate sales on firearms, enacted over thirty
years ago in response to Lee Harvey Oswald's interstate purchase of the rifle used to kill
President Kennedy.
As to my acceptance or counteroffer to your proposal, you have had my counteroffer
since October. You have never responded to it. However, Chairman Hyde. this six-month-old
game of floated "compromises" and missives has brought us no closer to producing a gun safety
bill that the American people overwhelmingly want and deserve. In contrast, a meeting of the
conference could produce such a bill. I, therefore, implore you to use your considerable influence
on your leadership and request that they cease obstructing the gun safety bill and allow a meeting
of the conference committee,
Sincerely,
John
Ranking
1 In your November 4 proposal, you explicitly required a three-day check for individuals for whom
an "official record" indicates "receipt of a firearm would violate subsection (g) or (n) (the section which
prohibits the transfer of a firearm to an individual under indictment) of section 922." Your April 14
proposal would merely allow a three day check where an "official record" indicates a person is prohibited
under 922(g).
Lynnsweet
202/662-7578
Chronology
-- After Senate passage of gun safety, during a Judiciary Committee markup(5/26/99), Mr.
Conyers moves that the Committee immediately take up juvenile justice legislation so that gun
safety can be considered (the juvenile justice bill had been postponed by the Chairman three
times from markup because Reps. were afraid of gun amendments):
Mr. Conyers You know, as well as I, that delay is really a gift to the opponents of gun
violence legislation
Mr. Hyde.
We will have a bill, and it will be ready the first day we are back (from Memorial
Day recess). We will mark that bill up. You will have the opportunity to offer any and all
amendments you want that are germane. We will take them. We will deal with them. We will
vote on them. Then we will take it to the floor the following week, which would be the 14th
Notwithstanding his assurances, the Committee scheduled nothing the week following recess and
instead took the bill straight to the floor where the bill was reported under a restrictive rule that
gamed the process in favor of the gun lobby (as Conyers predicted).
-- On May 26, Knight Ridder reports that Hyde says he is "supportive" of the Senate bill. On
May 31, AP reports that "(t)he House will likely pass a package of gun -control measures
approved last week by the Senate and could go even further, said Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill. 'I
see the Senate bill at least (passing in the House) and maybe more, However, Hyde
subseuqnelt offers a gun show amendment weaker than the Senate bill which shortens
background checks from three business days to 72 hours, replicates the NRA's loophole placed
in the Hatch-Craig gun show amendment, allows private citizens to run background checks,
requires immediate destruction of Brady records. Etc. This year, on "Meet the Press" (4/16), he
criticizes the Senate bill and says "Lautenberg won't fly."
-- Hyde offers an amendment to the Rules Committee to prohibit handgun purchases by persons
under 21. The Rules Committee allows it to be offered on the floor. Inexplicably, Hyde walks
off the floor when his amendment is to be offered and declines a request from Rep. Jackson-Lee
to offer the amendment is his place. The amendment is never offered.
-- Two months go by without Hyde appointing any conferees on the legislation.
The conference meets the first time on August 4. Members are disallowed from offering
legislation and are simply allowed to make statements. Hatch claims that staff will meet over
recess and then a conference will be called to iron out differences staff cannot iron out. The
conference meet still hasn't been called.
-- During recess Hyde staff and Conyers staff meet to discuss a gun safety bill and whether
compromise is possible. Conyers staff suggests a 24 hour background check period unless a red
flag is raised. In such cases, 3 business days would be allowed. No other loopholes. Staff
agree.
-- Hyde gives Conyers draft. It does not allow three business days for all red flags and contains
a number of loopholes. Conyers staff immediately responds by email (probably available if
requested) and subsequently by letter with concerns. Inexplicably, Hyde claims Conyers has
never responded to proposal in the Washington Times on September 23:" the Democrats have
stalled for two weeks on a compromise gun proposal floated by House Judiciary Committee
Chairman Henry J. Hyde, Illinois Republican. "I think he's had adequate time to digest it,"
Mr. Hyde said yesterday." In addition, few, if any, of the concerns in the original e-mail or
correspondence were ever addressed. Conyers gives Hyde a counterproposal -- Hyde never
responds.
-- Hyde repeatedly leads the press to believe a deal is near on guns despite the fact that Hyde and
Conyers are nowhere close and Hatch and Hyde never come forward with a bill. An example
from Roll Call on October 11: "After months of delay, House and Senate GOP negotiators have
reached agreement on controversial new gun control provisions that will be unveiled to
a conference committee as early as tomorrow. The agreement worked out by House Judiciary
Chairman Henry Hyde (R-III.) and Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)will
require that 95 percent of the background checks for purchases at gun shows be completed
within a day Hyde said in an interview that he hopes the compromise gun control proposal he
worked out with Hatch can be unveiled on Tuesday." (A number of other reports indicated thay
Conyers and Hyde were close to a deal).
-- On October 7, after doing so privately, Conyers -- in writing -- asks for a conference meeting
to resolve remaining differences. Hyde writes that "there is a good chance we will meet early
next week" on October 8. No such meeting ever occurs.
-- On November 3, Conyers receives NRA bulletin that indicates Hyde is circulating a proposal
Conyers has never seen that is worse than his previous proposals.
-- On November 4, to coincide with the Vice-President's visit to Capitol Hill to promote gun
safety, Hyde publicly releases a new proposal in a letter to Gephardt. Among other things, it
creates a new "official records" loophole that would probably not allow the Brady system to use
a record not signed, notarized or printed on letterhead.
-- It also should be noted that his proposal weakens the very good amendment he offered on the
floor to ban the importation of large capacity ammo clips. The provision now does NOTHING.
It simply reletters and renumbers existing sections. Hyde explained the provision on the floor as
the following:
"Current law prohibits the transfer or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices,
such as clips and other types of magazines. But current law also provides a major exception. It
permits the possession and transfer of any such device lawfully possessed on or before the date
of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That is
September 13, 1994.
The world is awash in high-capacity ammo clips manufactured before the effective date
of the 1994 Act, and such devices have been approved for importation into the United States if
importers submit evidence establishing that the devices were manufactured on or before
September 13, 1994.
Our proposal would amend the definition of a `large capacity ammunition feeding device'
to delete the language limiting the definition to devices manufactured after September 13,
1994."¹
Yet, a simple comparison of his amendment and his November 4 proposal does not contain the
essential language amending this definition.
-- Conyers repeatedly writes to Hyde and Hatch requesting a conference meeting. He receives
no response.
-- Conyers asks Hyde to join in letter requesting conference meeting on March 9. No response.
-- Conyers and Hyde meet with POTUS. Conyers says he will be happy to begin negotiations
with Hyde if Hatch will call a conference meeting. No deal.
-- Hyde staff contacts Conyers staff requesting negotiations. Conyers writes on March 16
reiterating that he will negotiate if a meeting is called. No deal.
-- Hyde brings NRA sponsored Project Exile block grant bill straight to the floor without a
Crime Sbcmte. Or full Committee markup. The bill is placed on the suspension calendar where
Democratic amendments related to enforcement, like ATF funding, cannot be offered nor can
gun safety amendments be offered.
-- On April 11, Hyde signs on to letter with Conyers requesting that Hatch call a conference
meeting and pledging to "begin anew negotiations." Inexplicably, the next day -- to coincide
with POTUS meeting on gun safety in Colorado -- Hyde releases a proposal in a letter to
POTUS weaker than his Gephardt proposal and previous drafts (among other things it opens up
an indictment loophole and requires immediate destruction of Brady records in addition to
loopholes in previous drafts). Strangely, despite the good faith tone of the previous day's letter,
Hyde asserts in letter to POTUS that Conyers refuses to negotiate and that proposal is an
improvement on November 4.
¹Congressional Record, House of Representatives, June 17, 1999.
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Committee on the Judiciary
Democratic Staff Office
B-351-C Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
FACSIMILE COVER LETTER
Deame
TO:
FAX NO: 456-7028 #PAGES:
(including this page)
FROM:
PERRY APELBAUM
SAMPAK GARG
SCOTT DEUTCHMAN
MICHONE JOHNSON
CAROLYN DONNELLY
TED KALO
CORI FLAM
KEENAN KELLER
ANTHONY FOXX
MATT NOSANCHUK
TERESA VEST
COMMENTS:
If parts of this transmission are unclear or transmission
was faulted, please call: (202) 225-6906.
101
P
05/08/00 MON 19:37 FAX
Q7/20/00 THU 10:32 FAX
001
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Committee on the Judiciary
Democratic Staff Office
B-351-C Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
FACSIMILE COVER LETTER
TO:
Deanne
FAX NO: 456-7028
# PAGES:
(including this page)
FROM:
PERRY APELBAUM
SAMPAK GARG
SCOTT DEUTCHMAN
MICHONE JOHNSON
CAROLYN DONNELLY
TED KALO
CORI FLAM
KEENAN KELLER
ANTHONY FOXX
MATT NOSANCHUK
TERESA VEST
COMMENTS:
If parts of this transmission are unclear or transmission
was faulted, please call: (202) 225-6906.
07/20/00
THU
10:32
FAX
002
MAJORITY MEMBERS
MINORITY MEMBERS
HENRY J. HYDE, ILLINOIS, CHAIRMAN
JOHN CONYERS. JR, MICHIGAN
BARNEY FRANK. MASSACHUSETTS
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., WISCONSIN
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
HOWARD L. BERMAN. CALIFORNIA
BILL McCOLLUM, FLORIDA
RICK BOUCHER, VIRGINIA
GEORGE W. GEKAS. PENNSYLVANIA
HOWARD COBLE, NORTH CAROLINA
Congress of the United States
JERROLD NADLER, NEW YORK
ROBERT C. "BOBBY" SCOTT, VIRGINIA
LAMAR S. SMITH. TEXAS
MELVIN L WATT. NORTH CAHOLINA
ELTON GALLEGLY, CALIFORNIA
CHARLES T. CANADY, FLORIDA
20E LOFGREN, CALIFORNIA
BOB GOODLATTE VIRGINIA
STEVE CHAROT, OHIO
house of Representatives
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, TEXAS
MAXINE WATERS, CALIFORNIA
BOB BARR. GFORGIA
MARTIN T. MEEHAN. MASSACHUSETTS
WILLIAM L JENKINS, TENNESSEE
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT MASSACHUSETTS
ASA HUTCHINSON, ARKANSAS
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
NOBERT WEXLER FLORIDA
EDWARD A. PEASE. INDIANA
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN. NEW JERSEY
CHRIS CANNON. UTAH
2138 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TAMMY BALDWIN, WISCONSIN
JAMES E. ROGAN, CALIFORNIA
ANTHONY D. WEINER NEW YORK
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, SOUTH CAROLINA
MARY BONO, CALIFORNIA
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6216
SPENCER BACHUS. ALABAMA
JOE SCARBOROUGH. FLORIDA
THOMAS E. MOONEY. SR.
JULIAN EPSTEIN
DAVID VITTER, LOUISIANA
GENERAL COUNSEL CHIEF OF STAFF
(202) 225-3951
MINORITY CHIEF COUNSEL
http://www.housa.gov/judiciary
AND STAFF DIRECTOR
JON DUDAS
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL STAFF DIRECTOR
July 12, 2000
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, D.C.
Dear John:
I wish to thank you again for your letter of June 15, 2000 concerning gun safety
legislation. As I indicated I would do in my letter to you on June 16, 2000, I have now reviewed
your letter and draft report and wish to provide a more detailed response.
(1) Narrowing language in gun show definition. I am pleased you are willing to support
the definition in my most recent offer. As you recall, in my offer I defined "gun show" so as to
include all events that are used to facilitate the sale of firearms and where there are 50 or more
firearms and not less than five vendors. As I indicated, this new "facilitation" language is
intended to address your concern about flea markets being the occasion for gun sales, while at the
same time attempting to exempt certain gatherings (i.e., a county fair or group yard sale) that
might unknowingly have five persons selling firearms which, in the aggregate, total more than 50
firearms. I continue to believe that such gatherings should not be converted into "gun shows,"
with all of the attendant criminal and civil liability for participants. You stated that you have
"never heard of much less attended - a yard sale where 50 or more guns are sold by five or
more firearm vendors." While I have not attended such yard sales personally either, I have been
made aware of the existence of such yard sales in more rural areas, where there are occasional,
informal gatherings where personal property and effects are sold. Such gatherings represent a
less formal version of a town or county fair. I am pleased that you would be prepared to support
language intended to cover bonafide gun shows while being careful to exempt gatherings of this
kind which might unknowingly have more than 50 firearms present.
(2) Raising numerical threshold in gun show definition. I was unaware that you were
rethinking the number of firearm vendors required for an event to be a gun show, but I am
pleased you continue to stand by this portion of the definition that we have agreed upon now for
many months.
07/20/00 THU 10:33 FAX
I
003
The Honorable John Conyers
July 12, 2000
Page Two
(3) 24-hour time limit on background checks at gun shows. Your most recent proposal
continues to provide that any "information obtained in the course of completing the background
check" that a person is ineligible may trigger the longer three day review period. As you recall, I
have proposed that any "official record" of possible ineligibility would trigger the longer review
period. You state that your "language precisely mirrors the language used to describe "red flags"
in current law. 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(4)." While your language closely resembles the language of
current law as found in 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(4), it does not "precisely mirror" it. The relevant part of
section 922(t)(4) states the following: "If the national instant check system notifies the licensee
that the information available to the system does not demonstrate that the receipt of a firearm
by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) or State law, and the licensee transfers a
firearm to such other person..." My proposal included the term "official record" simply because
the adjective "official" is used in the portion of the Brady Act which established the National
Instant Check System and which describes the type of information would be available to the
NICS system (Pub.L. 103-322, Title XXI, section 210603(b), Sept. 13, 1994, 103 Stat. 2074; See
note on the "National Instant Criminal Background Check System" at the end of 18 U.S.C. 922,
and specifically, subparagraph (e)(1), entitled "Authority to obtain official information.")
It is my contention, based on the plain language of the relevant law, that the only records
and information available to the NICS system are "official" records and information. I remain
open, however, to working with you on modified language that, in fact, precisely mirrors the
language of section 922(t)(4).
(4) Allowing instant check registrants to conduct background checks. You state in your
letter that instant check registrants are a "largely unregulated entity." You also state that instant
check registrants "do not have the same deterrents against wrongdoing as licensed dealers." This
is simply not the case. My proposal subjects instant check registrants to the same background
and approval process that exists for federally licensed vendors and imposes the same criminal
liability on instant check registrants that is imposed on federally licensed vendors. Even with
your concerns, you nevertheless state that you would support instant check registrants, $0 long as
their use is limited "to events where there are not enough licensed dealers available to make
background checks easily available." While I am willing to consider this limitation, I am not
certain how such a provision would work. What does "easily available" mean? Who would
make such a determination, and when? If such a determination were made only after the event
itself began, it is not clear that instant check registrants could then be secured in a timely manner.
I look forward to learning more about this provision.
(5) Preventing the creation of a gun registry. I appreciate your creativity in seeking to
address the concern of some that we not establish a gun registry. I am open to exploring how the
General Accounting Office (GAO) could be used to ensure that NICS records of approved
purchasers are not used to create a registry. I wonder if you would be willing to work with me on
language that distinguishes between approved purchasers (i.e., applicants for whom there are no
0.7/20/00 THU 10:33 FAX
J.
004
The Honorable John Conyers
July 12, 2000
Page Three
records and no red flags, or for whom a final disposition record is available and known and
which indicates that the person is an eligible purchaser) and purchasers who are neither approved
nor disapproved by the end of the three-day review period. As you know, under current Brady
law, after the three-day review period, if an applicant is not affirmatively disapproved, the
purchase is permissible. Such a sale may occur even if there is a record of a possible
disqualifying offense (i.e., a "red flag,") where the final disposition of such an offense is
unknown. I would be willing to try to develop language that calls for the immediate destruction
of records of approved purchasers but that permits the retention of records for up to 90 days for
purchasers who are not approved because of a "red flag." And the GAO could be empowered to
audit NICS to make sure that such a system was properly functioning.
(6) Disallowing government retention of tracing records. Your proposal requires in the
case of used firearms, that the federally licensed vendor or instant check registrant who performs
the background check transmit the make, model, and serial number of the used firearm to the
manufacturer (or to the Secretary of the Treasury if the manufacturer has discontinued business).
As I have previously stated, I am personally comfortable with such a requirement; however, I
continue to believe that such a new record-keeping requirement would make our agreement even
more difficult to sell to a majority of House Members. I would ask you to seriously consider
dropping this new requirement for the sake of increasing the prospects of our securing a majority
of votes.
(7) Let's step outside transactions. You state that you have reluctantly agreed to my
language which would exclude some offers to sell guns at gun shows from background check
requirements. I am glad that you continue to support language that you have supported for many
months. But I would remind you that my proposal explicitly addresses those who would use a
gun show to line up purchases and sales but then make such transactions outside the gun show.
My proposal makes it a crime for anyone to receive a firearm from another person that the person
knows has been transferred to the recipient in violation of law. My proposal further makes it a
crime for any person to structure or assist in structuring a firearms transaction to evade the
background check requirement.
(8) Enforcement against gun criminals. You have expressed your reluctant agreement
with my proposal that includes lower sentences on gun criminals than the sentences included in
the Senate bill. The only reason I included lower sentences in my proposal than those in the
Senate-passed bill was in response to Democrat concerns and in an effort to find more Democrat
votes for our proposal. In light of your recently expressed support and the longstanding, united
support of Republicans for the tougher sentences in the Senate, I am in agreement that we should
include the increased sentences in my proposal.
(9) Fees for background checks. I am glad that you continue to support the language
which prohibits the imposition of a user fee for the NICS system. Once again, such language is
07/20/00 THU 10:34 FAX
1
005
The Honorable John Conyers
July 12, 2000
Page Four
crucial to our chances of garnering a majority of votes.
I was pleased to receive your letter and to have you reaffirm your support for a
number of the provisions that we previously agreed to. And I appreciate your continued
willingness to search for common ground on the various other provisions. I believe we are
continuing to make progress in narrowing our disagreements in the area of the gun show
background check section and, as such, are improving the prospects of reaching agreement on the
larger comprehensive legislation. I look forward to your response to my letter.
Sincerely,
Hinry Henry J. Hyde
Chairman