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
41050576
label
Brady Decision [3]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
41050576
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Brady Decision [3]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Jose Cerda's Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
41050576
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7367474-20091305F-021-001-2016
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0d1d4d97fd20b3a3
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2009-1305-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Domestic Policy Council
Series/Staff Member:
Jose Cerda
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
18931
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Brady Decision [3]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
98
2
4
2
White House Brady Mtg. Agenda
(August 1, 1997)
1) Status of Voluntary Checks
a) Arkansas
b) Ohio
c) Rhode Island
d) Halbrook Letter
e) Other
f) List of CLEO's
2) Status of legislative options
a) Police group views
b) Need for legislation
3) Status of NICS
a) Hardward/software infrastructure
b) Federal record completeness
c) State record completeness
d) Recruiting of state POC's (& issues of authority and willingness)
NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
REMARKS OF ELEANOR D. ACHESON
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CONSULTATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
CONCERNING THE BRADY LAW
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
JULY 16, 1997
I.
INTRODUCTION -- THE NICS IS ON SCHEDULE.
The Brady Act requires the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System, known by the acronym "NICS" to be operative by November 30, 1998.
The Justice Department, with the FBI at the forefront, has been working in
close cooperation with the ATF to develop and implement the NICS system;
and we are on schedule to meet the November 30, 1998 deadline. When it
goes on-line, the NICS, which will draw principally on existing federal and
state records systems, will have the capability to search state and federal files
for information on persons prohibited from possessing a firearm -- within 30
seconds.
II.
THE STATES WILL PLAY A VITAL ROLE IN THE NICS.
The NICS builds on the tradition of decentralized maintenance of criminal history
records by state and local entities. The states, through the Brady Act Task Group,
have played an important role in developing the design of the NICS, and the states
will have a primary role in collecting, storing, and disseminating criminal history
information.
III.
HOW THE NICS WORKS.
The NICS will operate as follows: When a person goes to a licensed firearms dealer
to buy a gun -- both handguns and long guns will be covered by the permit provisions
of the Act -- the dealer will call a point of contact (POC), who in most cases will be a
state law enforcement officer. The dealer will provide the POC with the prospective
purchaser's identifying information, and the POC will check whether the prospective
gun buyer is prohibited under state and local records from getting a gun either because
the person has a criminal history or falls within another prohibited category.
If the state and local check does not disclose any disqualifying information, the second
step of the NICS check looks at national databases that are already in existence. The
most important of these is the Interstate Identification Index (III), an ongoing
federal/state initiative, which contains federal criminal records and provides leads to
more than 25 million state and federal criminal history records. Additional databases
are the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) Hot Files, which include
information on persons prohibited from obtaining a firearm because they are subject to
a protective order, fugitives from justice, or felons under a deportation order. In
addition to these databases, the NICS will also check the "NICS Index," which will
contain records that are provided by federal agencies on the other categories of persons
prohibited by the Gun Control Act from obtaining a firearm, such as persons who have
renounced their citizenship, illegal aliens, or unlawful users of a controlled substance.
2
Because the NICS will rely heavily on information maintained by the states and
because state records on the categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms
are not complete, the automated system will not always provide definitive information
within 30 seconds on whether a person is prohibited from purchasing a gun. In this
case, further research by the POC will be required. For example, state criminal history
records may indicate that the person has been convicted of a crime, but local
information may be needed to determine whether the crime is a felony. In such cases,
the POC typically will be able to determine a prospective purchaser's eligibility within
a few hours. The Justice Department fully expects that the vast majority of NICS
checks will be performed within 30 seconds.
IV.
UPDATED CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS ARE ESSENTIAL.
Ultimately, the NICS system will only be as good as the state criminal history records
on which it depends. Therefore, it is essential to improve the accuracy, completeness,
and automation of state criminal history records. To assist the states in accomplishing
this goal, the Justice Department has already distributed $112 million to the states to
help them improve their criminal history records under the National Criminal History
Improvement Program (NCHIP). At the national level, the Justice Department is
working with the states to make the III even more comprehensive. Presently, thirty-
two states participate in the III, and the majority of remaining states will be part of the
III by the end of 1998.
3
V.
IT IS CRUCIAL FOR STATES TO DESIGNATE POCs.
State interests will best be served when the states designate state officials to serve as
POCs for the NICS system, although the FBI will serve as POC for any state that
declines to designate a state POC. When states provide POCs, NICS checks will be
more up to date, accurate, and efficient. The state POCs will likely have access to
state and local records that are unavailable to a federal POC, and the state POCs will
have a greater familiarity with state and local records in their jurisdiction and can
interpret these records more easily than a federal POC. Moreover, it is greatly to the
states' advantage to designate a state POC, because the states will have greater control
in determining who is barred from obtaining a firearm within the jurisdiction, and the
state POCs will have the ability to enforce state laws that prohibit additional categories
of individuals from obtaining a firearm.
VI.
CONCLUSION -- THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUED STATE
PARTICIPATION.
The Justice Department, the FBI, ATF, and many other federal, state, and local law
enforcement officials are engaged in extensive efforts to make the NICS as effective
and efficient as possible when it goes on-line next year. The participation of state and
local law enforcement in designing the NICS thus far has been essential and the
continued input of state and local law enforcement is needed to make the NICS system
live up to its potential. In particular, state and local enforcement should encourage
state criminal justice agencies to designate state POCs and update criminal history
records. The NICS will be more effective and less burdensome than the interim Brady
4
system, which already prevents approximately 6,600 felons and other prohibited
persons from purchasing handguns each month. The Brady Act has already reduced
crime and saved lives. With the continued valuable participation and support of the
states, the NICS will be even more effective in preventing prohibited persons from
obtaining firearms and, thus, reducing crime, saving lives of law enforcement and
civilians alike and making our communities safer.
5
I.
How the NICS Will Work
A.
Reliance on existing, primarily state, data bases
B.
Description of operation
1. Point of contact
2. Databases
II. Criminal History Records
A.
III participation (30 States)
B.
Final dispositions of arrest records
1. Arrest records complete (since '74)
2. Effect of incomplete conviction records
(Rual disposition
III. Points of Contact
G $11 40% of
A.
When needed permit states
B.
Advantages of state points of contact
securds in
+ 33% are
accurate +
through disp.
Most people have
multiple unests +
dupose hur
only fuller one accurate secord
we outly
G 85% Come clean rightaway
(no Puble postly 49
for
last
G remaining - reost ≡ 15% are clear
5 years
to Re obticer (by SSN #,etc.)
G 4 Small % undern.
will have recoule on 3370+
G I lucal officer can usually
w/a few calls + couple hound
set into - act gives your 3 days
von-criminal history records
are much muve use proflematic.
Guo records.
& #S ave only Pelony convictions
G but 2-and now almost 3 (JUVIE) -
that we
BRADY LEGISLATION
AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT CHECKS, INTERIM AND PERMANENT, UNLESS PROHIBITED BY
STATE LAW
AUTHORIZATION TO CHARGE FEES, INTERIM AND PERMANENT, UNLESS PROHIBITED BY
STATE LAW
No LIABILITY FOR CONDUCTING CHECKS, INTERIM AND PERMANENT
BACK-UP CLEO TO CLEO OF RESIDENCE OF BUYER (CLEO OF LOCATION OF SELLER, ANY
OTHER CLEO IN THE STATE)
AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL $ HUNDRED MILLION FOR IMPROVEMENT OF CRIMINAL
HISTORY, SEXUAL PREDATOR, NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION ACT, AND OTHER RECORDS
IMPROVEMENTS EFFORTS OF THE STATES
07/25/97 FRI 13:17 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
DENNIS BURKE
004
Department of Justice
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AG
FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1997
(202) 616-2777
TDD (202) 514-1888
STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO
ON ARKANSAS' DECISION TO PERMIT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
TO CONTINUE CONDUCTING BACKGROUND CHECKS ON PURCHASERS OF GUNS
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Attorney General Janet Reno today hailed
the state of Arkansas' decision to continue conducting background
checks under the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act. Arkansas
Attorney General Winston Bryant ruled late yesterday that the
Arkansas State Police have the authority to conduct checks, and
that they can charge a fee for them.
Last month, Arkansas and Ohio halted the practice of checking
the criminal records of gun purchasers after the Supreme Court
ruled that the federal government could not require the states to
conduct them.
Reno praised the decision:
"This ruling will mean safer streets for all Americans, since
illicit guns travel nationwide.
"While the Supreme Court said the federal government cannot
require states to conduct background checks, states can voluntarily
conduct them on their own. President Clinton, Treasury Secretary
Rubin and I have urged states to exercise good law enforcement
judgement and keep doing background checks, and 49 states are now
doing SO.
(MORE)
07/25/97 FRI 13:18 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
DENNIS BURKE
005
- 2 -
"The Brady Act. has prevented more than 250,000 fugitives,
felons, and others from buying from buying guns over the counter.
I commend Attorney General Bryant for this step forward in
protecting the citizens of Arkansas. It was a pleasure to work
with him, and I look forward to working with him in the future.
"Now that Arkansas will be conducting these common sense
background checks, Ohio is the only state in the nation where the
appropriate chief law enforcement officer is not conducting
voluntary background checks. I continue to work with Ohio Attorney
General Betty Montgomery, and hope to resolve any outstanding
issues in the near future.
"All Americans--Arkansans in particular--are safer today for
Attorney General Bryant's ruling."
# # #
97-308
Department of Justice
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1997
AG
(202) 616-2777
TDD (202) 514-1888
STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO
ON ARKANSAS' DECISION TO PERMIT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
TO CONTINUE CONDUCTING BACKGROUND CHECKS ON PURCHASERS OF GUNS
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Attorney General Janet Reno today hailed
the state of Arkansas' decision to continue conducting background
checks under the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act. Arkansas
Attorney General Winston Bryant ruled late yesterday that the
Arkansas State Police have the authority to conduct checks, and
that they can charge a fee for them.
Last month, Arkansas and Ohio halted the practice of checking
the criminal records of gun purchasers after the Supreme Court
ruled that the federal government could not require the states to
conduct them.
Reno praised the decision:
"This ruling will mean safer streets for all Americans, since
illicit guns travel nationwide.
"While the Supreme Court said the federal government cannot
require states to conduct background checks, states can voluntarily
conduct them on their own. President Clinton, Treasury Secretary
Rubin and I have urged states to exercise good law enforcement
judgement and keep doing background checks, and 49 states are now
doing SO.
(MORE)
- 2 -
"The Brady Act. has prevented more than 250,000 fugitives,
felons, and others from buying from buying guns over the counter.
I commend Attorney General Bryant for this step forward in
protecting the citizens of Arkansas. It was a pleasure to work
with him, and I look forward to working with him in the future.
"Now that Arkansas will be conducting these common sense
background checks, Ohio is the only state in the nation where the
appropriate chief law enforcement officer is not conducting
voluntary background checks. I continue to work with Ohio Attorney
General Betty Montgomery, and hope to resolve any outstanding
issues in the near future.
"All Americans Arkansans in particular-- are safer today for
Attorney General Bryant's ruling.' "
# # #
97-308
06/20/1997 14:27
2023719615
HCI
PAGE 02
LIST OF CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FOR PURPOSES OF THE BRADY
LAW (Public Law 103-159, November 30, 1993)
Beginning on February 28, 1994, the Brady law imposes a 5-day
waiting period on the sale of a handgun by Federal firearms
licensees to nonlicense's in States that do not already require a
prior background check. In this regard, the law requires
licensees to notify the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) of
the purchaser's residence upon the proposed sale of the handgun.
The CLEO is required to make a reasonable effort to ascertain
within 5 business days whether the buyer's receipt or possession
of a handgun would be in violation of law.
The following list of CLEOs was developed from information
provided by the law enforcement community.
Alabama
As of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Alabama is the County Sheriff. They will also receive the
reporting on the multiple sale of handguns.
Alaska
As of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Alaska is the Chief of Police in areas having a Police Department
or the Alaska State Troopers in areas without a Chief of Police.
They will also receive the reporting on the multiple sale of
handguns.
Arizona
As of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Arizona is the Chief of Police in incorporated areas and the
County Sheriff in unincorporated areas. However, in Maricopa
County, the Chief of Police, Phoenix Police Department, is the
Chief Law Enforcement Officer for both the City of Phoenix and
all other municipalities in the metropolitan Phoenix area, and
the County Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for the
unincorporated areas of the County. In the reporting of multiple
sale of handguns the forms should be sent to the Chief of Police
in incorporated areas or the County Sheriff in unincorporated
areas. However, in the City of Phoenix and all other
municipalities in the metropolitan areas, the forms should be
sent to the Chief of Police, Phoenix Police Department.
Arkansas
As of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Arkansas is the Arkansas State Police. They will also receive
the reporting on the multiple sale of handguns.
06/20/1997 14:27
2023719615
HCI
PAGE 03
Colorado
As of February 16, 1994, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation
will be the recipient of reporting on the multiple sale of
handguns.
Georgia
As of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Georgia is the County Sheriff except as indicated. They will
also receive the reporting on the multiple sale of handguns.
(See attached letter)
Idaho
As of the February 18, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Idaho is the Idaho Department of Law Enforcement, Bureau of
Criminal Identification. The Chief of Police in incorporated
areas or the County Sheriff in unincorporated areas will receive
the reporting on the multiple sale of handguns.
Kansas
Às of February 17, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Kansas is the County Sheriff, except for the incorporated cities
and towns in Johnson County where the Chiefs of Police are the
Chief Law Enforcement Officers. The Kansas Bureau of
Investigation will receive the reporting on the multiple sale of
handguns.
Kentucky
As of February 18, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer can be
either the Chief of Police in incorporated areas or the County
Sheriff in unincorporated areas. They will also receive the
reporting on the multiple sale of handguns.
Louisiana
As of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Louisiana is the Sheriff, except in Orleans Parish where the
Chief Law Enforcement Officer is the Superintendent of Police for
New Orleans. They will also receive the reporting on the
multiple sale of handguns.
Maine
As of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Maine is the Chief of Police in areas having a municipal police
department and the State Police in all other areas. They will
also receive the reporting of the multiple sale of handguns.
06/20/1997
14:27
2023719615
HCI
PAGE 04
Minnesota
AS of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Minnesota is the Municipal Police Chief. However, where there is
no local police agency, the County Sheriff will be the Chief Law
Enforcement officer. They will also receive the reporting of the
multiple sale of handguns.
Mississippi
As of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Mississippi is the Chief of Police in incorporated areas and the
County Sheriff in unincorporated areas. They will also receive
the reporting of the multiple sale of handguns.
Montana
AS of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer is
either the Chief of Police in incorporated areas or the County
Sheriff in unincorporated areas. They will also receive the
reporting of the multiple sale of handguns.
Nevada
As of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Nevada is the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety,
Nevada Highway Patrol, Records and Identification Services. They
will also receive the reporting of the multiple sale of handguns.
New Hampshire
As of February 16, 1994 the Chief Law Enforcement in New
Hampshire is the Chief of Police or the County Sheriff in areas
not covered by a Chief of Police. They will also receive the
reporting on the multiple sale of handguns.
New Mexico
As of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in New
Mexico is the Chief of Police in incorporated areas and the
County Sheriff in unincorporated areas. They will also receive
the reporting of the multiple sale of handguns.
North Carolina
As of February 17, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
North Carolina is the County Sheriff. They will also receive the
reporting on the multiple sale of handguns.
North Dakota
As of February 16, 1994 the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
North Dakota is the County Sheriff. They will also receive the
reporting on the multiple sale of handguns.
06/20/1997 14:27
2023719615
HCI
PAGE 05
ohio
AS of February 18, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
ohio is the Attorney General whose designated representative is
the Superintendent of the Bureau of Criminal Identification and
Investigation. They will also receive the reporting on the
multiple sale of handguns.
AS of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Oklahoma is the Chief of Police in incorporated cities and towns,
except that the County Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement
officer in incorporated cities and towns having no police
authority of their own. The Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
unincorporated areas is the County Sheriff. They will also
receive the reporting on the multiple sale of handguns.
Pennsylvania
As of February 18, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Pennsylvania is the County Sheriff except in Philadelphia County
where the Chief Law Enforcement Officer shall be the Commissioner
of the Philadelphia Police Department. They will also receive
the reporting on the multiple sale of handguns.
Puerto Rico
As of February 17, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Puerto Rico is the Police Superintendent, Firearms Bureau Chief.
The Superintendent will also receive the reporting on the
multiple sale of handguns.
Rhode Island
AS of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Rhode Island is the Chief of Police. The reporting on the
multiple sale of handguns will be sent to the Rhode Island State
Police Detective Division.
South Carolina
As of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement officer in
South Carolina is the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.
South Carolina Law prohibits the sale of more than one handgun
during any 30-day period to a nonlicensee.
South Dakota
As of February 17, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
south Dakota is the County Sheriff. They will also receive the
reporting on the multiple sale of handguns.
06/20/1997 14:27
2023719615
HCI
PAGE 06
Tennessee
AS of February 18, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement officer in
Tennessee is the Chief of Police in municipalities or the County
Sheriff in other areas. They will also receive the reporting on
the multiple sale of handguns.
Texas
AS of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Texas is the Chief of Police in incorporated cities and towns and
the County Sheriff in unincorporated areas. They will also
receive the reporting on the multiple sale of handguns.
Utah
As of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer is the
Utah Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal
Identification. They will also receive the reporting on the
multiple sale of handguns.
Vermont
AS of February 17, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Vermont is the Chief of Police or the County Sheriff, or the
State Police depending on the area. They will also receive the
reporting on the multiple sale of handguns. (See attached letter)
Washington
As of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
Washington is the Chief of Police in incorporated areas or the
County Sheriff in unincorporated areas. They will also receive
the reporting on the multiple sale of handguns.
West Virginia
As of February 17, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in
West Virginia is the West Virginia State Police. They will also
receive the reporting on the multiple sale of handguns.
Wyoming
As of February 16, 1994, the Chief Law Enforcement in Wyoming is
the Chief of Police or in other areas the County Sheriff. They
will also receive the reporting on the multiple sale of handguns.
(See attached letter)
07/16/97 WED 19:39 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
002
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
July 17, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR:
The Attorney General
FROM:
Kent Markus
Nicholas Gess
Matthew Levine
SUBJECT:
Current Status of Brady Enforcement
There are 23 states plus Puerto, Rico which are governed by
the Brady Handgun Control Act (Brady Act). The remaining states
and territories have enacted alternate statutes and are not
affected by either the Brady Act or the Printz decision.
According to ATF, which has conducted a less than comprehensive
survey of CLEOs in Brady states, as of the evening of July 16,
1997:
I.
There are eight states with a statewide chief law
enforcement officer (CLEO)
Arizona
Arkansas
Kentucky
Nevada
Ohio
South Carolina
West Virginia
Vermont
II. Of these eight states, two: Ohio and Arkansas are
problematic. The remaining six statewide CLEOs
(Arizona, Kentucky, Nevada, South Carolina, West
Virginia and Vermont) continue to do the Brady checks.
Ohio - At the direction of Ohio Attorney General
Betty Montgomery, her office, which is the
statewide CLEO, has ceased doing Brady background
checks unless the request for a background check
is accompanied by a waiver from the prospective
handgun purchaser. When a waiver does not
accompany the Brady form, AG Montgomery forwards
07/18/97 WED 19:39 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
003
the form to ATF.
Arkansas The Arkansas State Police is returning
Brady forms to the FFL at the reported d rection
of the Attorney General. However, according to
the Chief Deputy Attorney General (the Attorney
General was out-of-town) this is the result of a
decision by a staff attorney and has not been
ratified at a supervisory level, let alone the
Attorney General or Arkansas. We are in contact
with the Attorney General's office and hope to
work together to resolve the situation.
II. There are five other states in which one or more, but
in any event, very few, local CLEOs have declined to
conduct Brady background checks:
Kansas
Mississippi
Montana
Oklahoma
Wyoming
III. Congressman Charles D. Schumer (D-NY) has conducted his
own "poll" of CLEOs. In a July 16, 1997, press release, he
reports a list of CLEOs who are not conducting Brady background
checks (TAB A)
IV. On July 16, 1997, Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) released
the results of a poll it conducted in Ohio which reflects that
90% of Ohio residents believe that the state should continue to
conduct background checks (TAB B).
07/16/97 WED 19:39 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
004
TAB A
07/16/97 WED 19:39 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
005
NEWS
CHARLES E. SCHUMER
9th Congressional District N.Y.
2211 Rayburn H.O.B.
1628 Kings Highway
Washington 20515
Brooklyn. N.Y. 11229
(202) 225-6616
(718) 627-9700
FOR RELEASE:
CONTACT:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Josh Cohen
July 16, 1997
(202) 225-6616
Bill McGorern
David Yarsicy
SCHUMER SURVEY SHOWS BACKGROUND CHECKS CONTINUE DESPITE SUPREME COURT RULING
OVER 94% OF POLICE SUPPORT BRADY LAW BY CONTINUING CHECKS
- Holdouts Still Put States Like New York at Risk -
Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-Brooklyn and Queens) today released the first survey of
police chiefs and sheriffs showing that the overwhelming majority continue to conduct
Brady background checks after the recent Supreme Court decision. Over 94% of law
enforcement surveyed will continue conducting background checks. Schumer released
the survey during a with debate Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive director at the
National Press Club on Wednesday.
"The actions of law enforcement across the country speak loud and clear: Brady
works," said Schumer. "The Supreme Court gave the police a choice and they decided
to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by doing background checks. They know its
easier to do a background check than to solve a murder."
The study released by Schumer involved the 23 so-called "Brady states" affected by the
Court's decision. All other states have their own systems in place and will continue to
perform checks. The study surveyed 1,450 Chief Law Enforcement Officials who are
responsible for performing background checks under the Brady Law. 1.179 said they
will continue background checks. Only 70 said they will not and 203 did not respond.
Almost all the jurisdictions that have stopped conducting checks are very small.
However, in Ohio and Arkansas, the future of background checks remain in doubt due
to a combination of state laws and political maneuvering. Without these two states in
the survey, the 68 counties and towns not conducting checks cover just 0.6% of the
U.S. population, with an average size of 24,928 people each. With Arkansas and Ohio
included, only 5.8% of Americans live in places where background checks are
suspended.
"While I'm pleased/with the results of this study; unfortunately, a few bad apples can
spoil the whole bunch," said Schumer. "You can be sure that gunrunners will be drawn
to these Brady free' states like bees to honey."
- MORE
07/16/97 WED 19:40 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
006
An earlier report by Rep. Schumer traced the flow of guns used in crimes. It showed
that guns are sold in states with weak gun laws and then used by criminals in states
with strong laws. Even before the Brady ruling, Ohio and Arkansas were key sources
of guns due to weak state gun laws. Ohio supplied 823 crime guns to other states, 7th
most in the country. Arkansas was a key supplier to surrounding states such as Illinois,
Missouri and Tennessee.
"The NRA has fought gun control every step of the way." added Schumer. "But as this
study shows, they re on the losing side of this battle. The NRA will never defeat a
public -- and police -- united for gun control."
###
07/16/97 WED 19:40 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
007
FACT SHEET: SCHUMER SURVEY OF POLICE AGENCIES ON BRADY CHECKS
Last month, the Supreme Court overruled the section of the Brady Law
which required state or local law enforcement to conduct background checks on
gun buyers. Other provisions in Brady, such as the five-day waiting period,
remained intact. Just as significant, state and local law enforcement agencies are
free to continue conducting background checks voluntarily.
This survey offers the first snapshot showing how many state and local
agencies will continue to conduct background checks. The picture that develops
is very clear: all across America, most police are still following the Brady Law
by choice.
Decision Has No Impact in 27 States
By the time the Supreme Court ruled on the Brady Law, 27 states and
several territories had established their own programs to check the backgrounds
of gun purchasers (such as a telephone or computerized "Instant Check" or a
required permit for all gun buyers) -- including 18 of the nation's 20 most
populous states. In these states, the Court's decision will have no impact at all.
Only 24 states (including Puerto Rico) still used the federal system of a
five day waiting period and a background check conducted by state or local law
enforcement when the Court ruled. These are the only states in which the
Court's decision had an impact. In some, county or city law enforcement
conducts checks; in others, a state agency runs all checks:
Alabama
Mississippi
Puerto Rico
Alaska
Montana
Rhode Island
Arizona
Nevada
South Carolina
Arkansas
New Mexico
South Dakota
Kansas
North Dakota
Texas
Kentucky
Ohio
Vermont
Louisiana
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Maine
Pennsylvania
Wyoming
Most agencies continue to run checks
All 1,450 designated state and local agencies in these 24 states were
telephoned over the last week. Of the agencies responding, 94.4% said that
they were still doing background checks after the Court's decision:
1,179 said that background checks are continuing
70 said that background checks had stopped.
203 agencies did not respond or could not be reached.
07/16/97 WED 19:40 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
008
Most agencies that don't do checks are small
Putting aside two states that are special cases (see below), the 68 agencies
that have stopped checks are very small (see attached list):
The total population living in these jurisdictions is 1,695,090 (or 0.6%
of the U.S population).
Their average population is 24,928.
Nearly half the jurisdictions have populations below 10,000.
The three largest jurisdictions are Dona Ana County, New Mexico (pop
155,469). Quachita County, Louisiana (pop 146,447) and Shelby County,
Alabama (pop 118,224). None of the others have populations above
100,000.
The three smallest jurisdictions are three tiny towns in Montana: Darby
(pop 625). Pinesdale (pop 855) and Harlem (pop 885).
Ohio and Arkansas are the largest holdouts
Two states - Ohio and Arkansas -- have announced that they will not
conduct background checks for the time being, as they await further legal
opinions on their authority under state law. It is unclear whether background
checks will ultimately be authorized in these states.
In both states, many law enforcement authorities wish to continue the
checks. State officials have simply suspended the checks to clarify their legal
standing.
In Ohio, the state's Attorney General determined that she had no authority
to require background checks under state law. Her agency is checking the
background of an one who consents to a check, and forwarding other names to
ATF. According to a Peter Hart poll released by the Handgun Control
Federation of Ohio this morning, 90% of Ohioans support continuing
background checks, and 84% believe the Attorney General's interim plan is
ineffective.
In Arkansas, the State Police have announced that checks are suspended
while the agency awaits a legal opinion on their future from the state
government.
07/16/97 WED 19:41 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
009
Ohio and Arkansas, with a combined population of over 13 million, are
much larger than all the other jurisdictions combined. Yet even with these two
jurisdictions included, only 5.8% of Americans (15,250,018 people) live in
places where Brady checks have ceased.
However, an earlier report by Rep. Schumer that traced the flow of guns
used in crimes entitled the "War Between the States", showed that guns are sold
in states with weak gun laws and then used by criminals in states with strong
laws. Ohio and to a lesser extent Arkansas, were already key sources for
gunrunners even before the Supreme Court ruling due to weak state gun laws.
Ohio was the 7th largest supplier of crime guns to other states in the
country. It is also the biggest supplier in the Midwest sending guns to
neighboring Michigan and throughout the Northeast. Arkansas, while not as large
source of guns overall, was still a key supplièr for surrounding states such as
Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee and Michigan.
OHIO and ARKANSAS:
Already Major Sources of Guns for Criminals
07/16/97 WED 19:41 FAX 202 514 7864
New
York
86
Michigan
Michigan
235
20
Pennsylvania
53
Indiana
оню
New
Illinois
41
filinois
ferser
62
51
30
Missouri
32
DOJ OPLIA
Tennessee
24
ARKANSAS
Guns purchased in Ohio and Arkansas and traced to crimes in selected states, 1996.
SOURCE:ATF
2010
07/16/97 WED 19:41 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
011
Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEO's) that do not do background checks on
gun purchasers
Jurisdiction
State
Population
Blount, County of
Alabama
41,438
De Kalb, County of
Alabama
57,488
Shelby, County of
Alabama
118,244
St. Clair, County of
Alabama
55,930
Kenai, City of
Alaska
45,216
Kotzebue, City of
Alaska
3,160
Butler, County of
Kansas
55,736
Decatur, County of
Kansas
3,586
McPherson, County of
Kansas
28,101
Stevens, County of
Kansas
5,177
Wichita, County of
Kansas
2,886
Jackson, County Parish
Louisiana
15,683
Quachita, County Parish
Louisiana
146,447
Union, County Parish
Louisiana
21,474
West Carroll, County Parish
Louisiana
11,999
Adams, County of
Mississippi
34,734
Benton, County of
Mississippi
7,924
Gulfport, City of
Mississippi
64,000
Rolling Fork, City of
Mississippi
2,444
Blaine, County of
Montana
7,054
Fergus, County of
Montana
12,588
Garfield, County of
Montana
1,433
Judith Basin, County of
Montana
2,246
Meagher, County of
Montana
1,830
Ravalli, County of
Montana
30,701
Sweet Grass, County of
Montana
3,269
Teton, County of
Montana
6,438
Wheatland, County of
Montana
2,355
Chinook, City of
Montana
1,525
Choteau, City of
Montana
1,700
Darby, City of
Montana
625
Hamilton, City of
Montana
4,000
Harlem, City of
Montana
885
Lewistown, City of
Montana
8,000
07/16/97 WED 19:41 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
012
Pinesdale, City of
Montana
855
Dona Ana, County of
New Mexico
155,469
Otero, County of
New Mexico
54.307
Archer, County of
Texas
7,941
Cass, County of
Texas
30.393
Deaf Smith, County of
Texas
19,251
Hays, County of
Texas
74,222
Hood, County of
Texas
31,537
Houston, County of
Texas
21,669
Kaufman, County of
Texas
58,270
Knox, County of
Texas
4,630
Lamar, County of
Texas
44,953
Lee, County of
Texas
13.553
Lipscomb, County of
Texas
2,951
Madison, County of
Texas
11.352
Morris, County of
Texas
13,216
Parker, County of
Texas
71,305
Galena Park, County of
Texas
10,000
Hereford, County of
Texas
14,765
Poteet, County of
Texas
3,300
Hidalgo, County of
Texas
5,380
Rosebud, County of
Texas
2,000
Silsbee, County of
Texas
7,000
Terrell, County of
Texas
12,500
Littlefield, City of
Texas
7,000
Lockney, City of
Texas
2,300
Daingerfield, City of
Texas
2,500
Quanah, City of
Texas
4,000
Bristol, City of
Vermont
3,900
Laramie, County of
Wyoming
78.040
Niobrara, County of
Wyoming
2,554
Sublette, County of
Wyoming
5,375
Cheyenne, City of
Wyoming
52,000
Natrona, City of
Wyoming
63.886
1,695,090
07/16/97 WED 19:41 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
1013
TAB B
07/16/97 WED 19:41 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
014
7-15-1997 S:57PM
FROM CPHv 202 408 1021
.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Eric Fingerhut
Wednesday, July 16, 1997
Handgun Control Federation of Ohio
216/781-2944 x507
Ninety percent of Ohio Voters Want Ohio AG
to Resume Conducting Background Checks on Gun Purchasers,
New Poll Says
(Cleveland, OH) - Ohio residents overwhelmingly support the Brady Law and its
criminal background checks on handgun buyers, according to a new poll conducted by
Peter Hart Research and commissioned by Handgun Control Federation of Ohio.
On June 27, 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government did not have
the authority to require state and local governments to conduct background checks on
handgun purchasers, though state and local governments could certainly conduct such
checks if they wished. That same day, Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery
announced that, "Today will be the last day that the Ohio Bureau of Criminal
Identification and Investigation will accept Brady check calls from gun dealers." Ohio
and Arkansas are the only two states in the nation to terminate the criminal background
check policy.
The Peter Hart Research poll shows that 90% of Ohio residents believe that the state
should continue 10 perform criminal background checks on potential handgun buyers.
Additionally, 81% of those polled feel that any plan to make background checks
"voluntary," like the one Ohio Attorney General Berry Montgomery has now put in place,
will be less effective than requiring background checks for all potential handgun
purchasers. Eighty percent of those polled say they oppose Attorney General
Montgomery's decision.
Additionally, only 10% of those polled felt that Ohio's current gun control laws go too
far, and 52% felt that they need to be strengthened.
The poll indicated that the policy of criminal background checks for potential handgun
purchasers enjoys: widespread support that cuts across political lines. Ohio Republicans
support continued criminal background checks on potential handgun purchasers by a
margin of 87% in favor, and just 11% opposed. Among individuals polled who identified
themselves as generally having a "conservative" approach to issues, 87% support
continued background checks. Handgun owners themselves overwhelmingly support the
background checks, with 82% of gun owners in favor of the checks and only 16%
opposed.
-more-
07/16/97 WED 19:42 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
015
7-15-1997 9:57PM
FROM CPMV 202 1891
2
"Attorney General Montgomery's decision to stop conducting background checks on
potential handgun purchasers is as unpopular as it was ill-conceived," said Eric Fingerhut,
president of the Handgun Control Federation of Ohio. "This poll clearly shows that
Ohioans continue to overwhelmingly support this common sense measure to keep guns
out of the hands of criminals and children."
Peter Hart Research interviewed a random sampling of 603 Ohio voters from July 10-12,
1997. The margin of error is +/-4.1 percentage points.
The Brady Law -- which, nationwide, stops 157 felons every day from purchasing
handguns -- was implemented in February 1994 and requires a five-day waiting period
for the purchase of a handgun. Although background checks are no longer mandatory
under federal law since the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, almost every state and
local government continues to perform them either voluntarily or because of state law.
Since the Brady Law was enacted more than 250,000 high-risk purchasers nationwide ..
including more than 1,200 in Ohio - -- have been prevented from purchasing a handgun.
-30-
07/16/97 WED 19:42 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
016
7-15-1997 9:58PM
FROM CPMV 202 abo
Study #4945-page 1
PETER D. HART RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Interviewer. 603 voters
1724 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Dates: July 10-12, 1997
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 234-5570
FINAL
47 Male
53 Female
Study #4845
[5]
Ohio Survey
July 1997
AREA
TYPE
SAMPLE POINT
FORM
DATE
July
1997
[6]
E
[8]
[9]
[10]
(11)
[12]
[13]
[14]
1.
Are you registered to vote at this address?
Registered
100
CONTINUE
[15]
Not registered
TERMINATE AND DO NOT
Not sure
COUNT TOWARD QUOTA
2a.
Thinking back over the past several years. do you think the problem of handgun violence here in Ohio has
been getting better. getting worse, or staying about the same?
Getting better
7
[16]
Getting worse
42
Staying about the same
43
Not sure
8
2b.
Would you say that the current gun control laws here in Ohio that deal with the sale and possession of
handguns (a) go too far and are more restrictive than they should be, (b) are about right. or (c) do not go far
enough and rieed to be strengthened?
Go too far/more restrictive than they should be
10
[17]
About right
27
Don't go far enough/need to be strengthened
52
Not sure
11
3.
As you may know, the U.S. Congress passed the Brady Law in 1993. which requires a five-day waiting
period before a person can buy a handgun. and required law enforcement officials to perform a criminal
background check during that period. What is your reaction to the Brady Law -- very favorable. somewhat
favorable. somewhat unfavorable. or very unfavorable?
Very favorable
56
[18]
Somewhat favorable
25
Somewhat unfavorable
8
Very unfavorable
8
Not sure
3
4a.
The U.S. Supreme Coun recently ruled that the decision on whether to perform criminal background checks
on potential handgun buyers cannot be required by the federal government. but instead should be left up to
each state and locality. Before I just mentioned this, were you aware of this decision?
Yes, aware of Supreme Court decision
52
[19]
No. not aware of Supreme Court decision
47
Not sure
1
07/16/97 WED 19:42 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
017
7-15-1997 9:58PM
FROM CPHv 202 403 1851
U
Study #4945-page 2
4b.
Do you think the state of Ohio should or should not continue to perform criminal background checks on
potential handgun buyers?
Ohio should continue to perform checks
90
[20]
Ohio should not continue to perform checks
8
Not sure
2
4c.
Last week, Ohio's attorney general announced that Ohio would no longer require background checks on all
handgun purchasers, and would conduct a background check only if the purchaser voluntarily agrees. Do
you strongly favor, somewhat favor. somewhat oppose. or strongly oppose this decision to no longer
require background checks on all handgun purchasers, and to only conduct background checks if the
purchaser voluntarily agrees?
:
Strongly favor
9
[21]
Somewhat favor
8
Somewhat oppose
12
Strongly oppose
68
Not sure
3
5a.
According to official state statistics. background checks in Ohio have stopped one thousand two hundred
and six felons and other prohibited persons from purchasing a handgun since the Brady Law took effect In
1993. Given this fact. do you think Ohio should or should not continue to require background checks on all
handgun purchasers?
Ohio should continue to perform checks
89
[22]
Ohio should not continue to perform checks
8
Not sure
3
5b.
If Ohio changed its policies to conduct background checks only if the handgun purchaser voluntarily agrees.
do you think this voluntary system would be much less effective, somewhat less effective, or no less
effective in preventing criminals from purchasing handguns than the current system of requiring background
checks for all handgun purchases?
Much less effective
66
[23]
Somewhat less effective
15
No less effective
14
More effective (VOL)
1
Not sure
4
6.
Under the Brady Law. state and local law enforcement officials currently can take up to five business days
to complete background checks on handgun buyers. Some people say that the period for background
checks should be reduced to two days. so legitimate gun purchasers are not inconvenienced by the waiting
period. Other people say that law enforcement officials should continue to have five days. SO they have the
time they need to do a complete and thorough check.
Which way do you feel-that law enforcement officials should continue to be given up to five business days
for conducting background checks. or that the period for background checks should be reduced to two
days?
Continue with five days
81
[24]
Reduce to nwo days
12
Other/neither (VOL)
5
Not sure
2
07/16/97 WED 19:43 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
018
7-15-1997 9:59PM
FROM CPHV 202 400 105,
Study #4945-page 3
7a.
On a separate issue, would you favor or oppose changing the law in Ohio to make if easier for people to
obtain permits to carry concealed handguns in public?
Favor
19
[25]
Oppose
75
Not sure
6
7b.
If a candidate for major statewide office supported changing the law to make it easier for people to obtain
permits to carry concealed handguns in public. would this make you more likely or less likely to support that
candidate. or would it make little difference either way?
More likely to support
12
[26]
Less likely to support
55
Makes little difference
27
Not sure
6
8.
Leading public officials from surrounding states say that Ohio is becoming a center for gun purchases by
out-of-state residents who want to take advantage of Ohio's weaker gun control laws; as a result. these
officials have urged Ohio to strengthen its gun control laws. Do you think this is an important reason or not
an important reason for strengthening Ohio's current gun control laws?
Important reason
76
[27]
Not important reason
19
Not sure
5
&
FACTUALS: These last few questions are for statistical purposes only.
F1.
In what age group are you--(READ LIST)?
18-24
6
[28]
:
25-29
9
30-34
7
35-39
11
40-44
11
45.49
12
50-54
8
55-59
8
60-64
6
65 and over
20
Refused
2
F2.
How would you describe your overall point of view in terms of the political parties? Would you say you are
mostly Democratic, leaning Democratic, completely independent. leaning Republican. or mostly
Republican?
Mostly Democratic
26
[29]
Leaning Democratic
9
Completely independent
25
Leaning Republican
9
Mostly Republican
26
Not sure
5
07/16/97 WED 19:43 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
019
7-15-1997 9:59PM
FROM CPMv 202 403 1001
Study #4945-page 4
F3.
Thinking about your general approach to issues. do you consider yourself to be liberal, moderate, or
conservative?
Liberal
16
[30]
Moderate
42
Conservative
36
Not sure
6
F4.
For statistical purposes only. could you please tell me whether your total household income for last year
was above $35.000 or below $35,000?
(IF "ABOVE $35,000." ASK:) Would you say your household income was above $50,000 or below
$50,000?
(IF "BELOW $35,000." ASK:) Would you say your household income was above $20,000 or below
$20,000?
Above $50,000
26
[31]
$35,000-$50.000
22
$20,000-$35.000
20
Below $20,000
13
Not sure/refused
19
F5a.
Do you. or does anyone in this household. own a handgun?
Yes, own a handgun
27
[32]
No. do not own a handgun
70
Not sure
3
F5b.
Are you. or is anyone in this household. a dues-paying member of the National Rifle Association?
Yes. NRA member
6
[33]
No. not an NRA member
92
Not sure
2
F6.
What is your race - are you white. black. Hispanic, or something else?
White
89
[34]
Black
9
Hispanic
1
Other
Not sure
1
PETER D. HARI RESEARCHASSOCIATES
Ohio Mandgun Control survey
Study #4945
July 10-12, 1997
Wd65:5 4561-91-1
Sex of respondent
Table ,
Banner 1
Gun Control laws
Supreme Court
Party
Media Market
Area
In Ohio
07/16/97 WED 19:43 FAX 202 514 7864
Decision
Other
Identification
Ideology
ALL Cleve Cincin-
Cuyehoga Go 100 lar/ Not fer Aware of Not sware
Own Demo.
Volers
land
Inde- Repub- tib- Mod- Conserv-
ect
nati Deyton Columbus laledo County about right enough decision of decision handgun crets pendents licans erais erates atives
9.
Total
603
216
87
69
804
51
77
228
310
313
202
161
208
353
214
95
254
219
41
Male
47%
47%
49%
46%
472
48%
483
65%
35%
sex
368
58%
40%
SIX
53X
44%
44X
52%
S. female
53%
53X
SIX
52%
53%
52%
52%
35%
65%
42%
64%
42%
60%
49%
47X
56%
56%
48%
FROM CPHv 202 40S 1851
Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc.
DOJ OPLIA
1020
PETER 0. HART RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Page 2
onio Handgun Control Survey
Study #4945
July 10-12, 1997
7-15-1997 10:00PM
Sex of respondent
lable $
Bannes 2
07/16/97 WED 19:43 FAX 202 514 7864
Sex
Age
sex: Age
Income
Race
All
Nen Hen so Women Women 50
Voters
Hen
Below $35,000.
Above
Women
18.34
35-49
50-64 65 and over 18-49 and over 18-49 and over $35,000 $50,000 $50,000 Whites Blacks
Total
603
263
320
133
205
133
121
161
118
177
135
198
133
156
537
54
Male
47%
100%
50%
46%
48%
46%
100%
100%
42%
52%
55X
46X
532
FROM CPHv 202 408 lesi
Female
532
100%
50%
54%
52%
54%
100%
100%
58%
48%
45%
54%
47%
DOJ OPLIA
U
021
07/16/97
PETE! 0. HARI RESEARCH ASSOCIAIES
ohio Bandgun Control Survey
study 34945
July 10-12, 1997
AREA
Banner I
Gun Control Laws
Supreme Court
Nedia Market
Party
Area
In Ohio
Decision
Other
Identification
Ideology
All Cleve- Cincin-
Cuyahoga Go too larl Not far Aware of Not suare
Own Demo-
Voters
Inde- Repub- Lib- Mod- Conserv-
WED 19 43 FAX 202 514 7864 CFTIV
land nati Dayton Columbus foleds County about right enough decision of decision handgun crats pendents licens erals erates atives
total
603
216
87
69
104
50
"
228
110
JIJ
282
161
208
153
214
95
234
210
1
Cuyahage County
13%
36%
-
-
.
-
100%
10%
15%
14%
12%
12%
14X
15%
10%
12%
14%
12%
Rest of Cleveland
2JX
64%
1
.
-
-
20%
23%
22%
24%
19%
26%
media
12%
22%
20%
25%
21X
AUS
!
Youngstown media
5%
.
-
-
.
5%
6%
5%
6%
3X
10%
3%
3%
TIX
SX
5%
85
Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc
Greeling, WV-
2X
-
.
.
.
.
1%
1%
1%
DOJ OPLIA
2%
3%
Steubenville media
3%
1%
1%
3%
2X
1X
Zanesville media
1%
-
-
.
-
2%
-
1%
.
1%
1%
1%
-
1%
Columbus media
172
1
.
100%
20%
1BX
17%
16%
22%
14X
17%
22%
14%
17%
19%
Toledo media
B7
.
100%
3%
8%
TX
10%
0%
10%
SY.
6%
11X
9%
n
Lima media
1X
-
.
.
2%
a
1%
1%
2%
1%
1X
2%
1X
F1. Mayne, IN modio
1%
ir
IX
Daylon medio
12X
.
.
100%
.
.
10%
14%
12%
11%
01%
0%
4%
12%
12%
11%
12X
Cincimnati media
s%
64%
7%
5%
7%
6%
8%
3X
BX
9%
7X
5%
TX
Charles-Nuntington,
1%
-
5%
2%
4%
3%
38
WV media
4%
2X
4%
3%
3%
4X
Hamilton County
8%
56X
9%
8%
9%
7%
8%
6%
1%
B%
4%
8%
11%
022
PETER D. HART RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Ohio Handgun Control Survey
Study 84945
July 10.12. 1997
7-15-1997 10:00PM
AREA
Banner 2
Sex
Age
Sex: Age
Income
Race
07/16/97 WED 19:43 FAX 202 514 7864
All
Men Men 50 Women Women 50 Below $35,000. Above
Voters Nen Women 18.34 35.49 50-64 65 and over 18.49 and over 18-49 and over $35,000 $50,000 $50,000 Whites Blacks
total
603
283
320
133
205
113
121
161
118
177
135
198
133
158
537
54
Cuyahoga County
13X
13x
13X
11%
16%
11X
13%
13%
11X
12%
14%
14%
11%
12%
10%
37X
Rest of Cleveland
23X
22%
24%
26%
22%
20%
25%
22%
23%
25%
22%
media
24%
29X
17%
25%
12%
FROM CPHv 202 408 1851
Youngstown media
5%
5%
6%
4%
5%
5%
8%
42
TX
5%
6%
6%
4%
3X
6%
2%
Wheeting, LV-
2X
2%
1%
1%
1%
3%
1%
3%
-
3%
DOJ OPLIA
2X
2X
-
Steuberwille media
2%
1x
Zanesville media
1%
IX
1X
1%
.
1X
.
1X
1%
1%
.
1%
IX
0%
1%
-
Columbus media
17%
17X
17%
21X
15%
16X
18%
17%
16%
18%
17X
15%
15%
19%
17%
16%
Toledo media
8X
9%
8%
10%
B%
6%
6%
11%
6X
7%
9%
DX
82
7%
6%
12X
Lima media
1X
1X
1X
1%
.
2%
IX
1%
1%
-
2X
1%
1X
1%
1%
-
11. Mayne, IN media
.
-
#
1%
-
1%
-
1%
1%
-
1X
IX
-
.
Dayton media
12X
12%
11X
10%
12%
16%
9X
10%
15%
12%
10%
61%
TX
16%
11%
14%
Cincinnati media
on
7%
6%
6X
8%
6%
6%
0%
&
5%
AX
43
9%
9%
7%
.
Charles Huntington,
4%
3%
4%
2%
5K
2%
4%
2%
3%
6%
3%
5X
2%
3%
4%
-
WV media
Hamilton County
82
ex
ax
az
0%
10%
6%
9%
7X
ex
6%
8X
10%
9%
8%
6X
023
/
- Law But. asked
1 Crutical to
for help my
Where My are
this eRRout
not will to
more agentate
(to do decks).
investigate.
Al though som
D hope we will
- CRACK
-
REPORT
JUL-16-1997 18:50
EXEC. SEC. TREASURY DEPT
202 622 0073 P.02/02
From:
Michael Froman
To:
EX.MAIL."[email protected]", EX.MAIL."deich m@al.
Date:
7/16/97 5:53pm
Subject:
kids and guns funding
We have reviewed DPC's proposal and analyzed our funding situation in light of
the recent mark-up of our appropriations bill in the Senate. It might be
useful to do a conference call or meeting tomorrow to settle any remaining
issues, but here's where we are:
1. Contrary to Senator Campbell's comment, Treasury Enforcement was not
funded above the President's request. In fact, it left out important
infrastructure investments (e.g., ATF's new headquarters).
2. We have determined that the $11 million from the Customs Foreiture Fund
can still be made available, although it cannot be used to hire FTE's.
3. We have looked at DPC's proposal for expanding the tracing center by 13
tracers and for placing 3 (vs. 6) agents in each city. We do not believe that
the 13 tracers are sufficient to expand the tracing program to the additional
10 cities and to boost tracing beyond the 37% level. Also, ATF continues to
maintain that these cases are labor intensive and, if pressed, would rather
put 6 agents in half as many cities than to put 3 agents in all of the cities.
Therefore, we have the following proposal to make:
-- We think the President in his radio address could announce the following:
a) we will expand tracing to 10 additional cities (using the $11 million from
the Customs Forfeiture fund for equipment and contract employees), b) we will
work with local and state law enforcement officials to strengthen their
capacity to work with gun traces (assuming the S3 million in Justice money is
available), and 3) we will work with Congress to get further support for
agents to investigate these gun cases.
4. That "support" could come in the following forms: a) permission to
increase Treasury's carry-over authority from 50% to 100%, or 2) some other
means that our appropriators might suggest. We also would need a commitment
from OMB to approve the request for the necessary additional agents for the 25
cities in FY 99 and beyond.
5. We will not be able to promise agents in the 25 cities, and we should not
raise expectations about numbers of cases, etc., but this announcement could
help build support for further agent funding.
CC:
EX.MAIL."[email protected]"
TOTAL P as
BRADY.MTG
Page 1
Brady Law Follow Up Meeting
Agenda
August 1, 1997
I. Voluntary Background Checks -- Treasury
A. Overall survey of CLEOs
B. Arkansas
C. Ohio
11. Insta-Check System -- Justice
III. Options:
A. Continue to work with CLEOs on voluntary checks
B. Clarify state and local authority, immunity, fees
C. Schumer/DOJ legislation
D. Condition grants
E. Authorize more NCHIP (National Criminal History Improvement
Program) funding and require background checks
IV. Law enforcement groups
1001
07/24/97 THU 18:06 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
STATE
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
Office of the Director
Washington. D.C. 20530
July 24, 1997
TO:
Jose Cerda
456-7028
FROM:
Nicholas M. Gess, Director
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
U.S. Department of Justice, Room 1340 Main
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
(202) 514-3465 (office)
(202) 514-2504 (facsimile)
[email protected] (EMAIL)
SUBJECT: Arkansas Brady Statement
# PAGES:
(including cover sheet)
REMARKS: Jose - Attached is the Arkansas AG statement. Nick
07/24/97 THU 18:06 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
002
GENERAL
TO
202 514 2504
1997,07-24
14:31
#833 P.02/08
OF THE
STATE
STATE
OF
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Office of the Attorney General
Winston Bryant
Telephone:
Attorney General
(501) 682-2007
Opinion No. 97-253
July 24, 1997
Colonel John R. Bailey, Director
Arkansas State Police
#1 State Police Plaza Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72209
Dear Colonel Bailey:
This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the performance of
background checks on prospective purchasers of handguns in light of the recent
decision by the United States Supreme Court in Printz V. United States, 521·U.S.
(decided June 27, 1997). More specifically, you have presented the following
questions:
1. Does A.C.A. § 12-12-1009 give the Arkansas State
Police sufficient authority to continue the Brady
background checks in view of the Printz ruling?
2. If you find that the previous question is answered in
the affirmative, does A.C.A. $ 12-12-1012, or any
other statute, allow the Arkansas State Police to charge
a fee for conducting a federally mandated Brady
check?
3. Is the Arkansas State Police likely to prevail on the
merits in defending a case for illegal exaction if we
resume the Brady background checks and collect a fee
under the foregoing statutes?
200 Tower Building. 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2610
07/24/97 THU 18:07 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
003
FROM INR ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO
:
202 514 2504
1997,07-24
14:31
#833 P.03/08
Colonel John R Bailey, Director
Arkansas State Police
Opinion No. 97-253
Page 2
In Printz, the Court concluded that the federal government could not compel state
and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks under the Brady
Handgun Violence Protection Act. It is my opinion, however, that independent
statutory authority exists in Arkansas law authorizing the Arkansas State Police to
perform background checks on individuals seeking to purchase handguns, and that
the Arkansas State Police may provide conviction information to federally-
licensed firearms dealers. It is also my opinion that the Arkansas State Police may
charge a fee for conducting a background search and providing the results to
firearms dealers.
Question I -- Does A.C.A. $ 12-12-1009 give the Arkansas State Police sufficient
authority to continue the Brady background checks in view of the Printz ruling?
Pursuant to the interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act,
18 U.S.C. § 922(s), federally-licensed firearms dealers are generally required to
obtain the name, address, and date of birth of each prospective buyer as well as a
sworn statement containing certain personal information about the buyer. 18
U.S.C. § 922(s)(1)(A)(i); see also Koog V. United States, 79 F.3d 452 (5th Cir.
1996), cert denied, Gonzales V. U.S. and U.S. V. Gonzales, S.Ct (June 27,
1997). The dealer is then required to forward this information to the chief law
enforcement officer (CLEO) of the place of residence of the buyer or to the
particular official who has been designated to receive such notice. Id. The dealer
may sell the handgun to the prospective buyer if the CLEO notifies the dealer that
he has no information that would disqualify the purchaser or if the five-day period
expires without a response from the CLEO. 18 U.S.C. $ 922(s)(1)(A)(ii); see also
Koog, supra. The Arkansas State Police, of course, has complied with the federal
act as the CLEO designated to receive notice from the dealers. See Op. Att'y Gen.
No. 94-174.
In Printz, however, the Supreme Court held that the mandatory obligation imposed
by the Brady Act on chief law enforcement officers to perform background checks
on prospective handgun purchasers is unconstitutional. Thus, the Arkansas State
Police are not required, as formerly believed, to perform background checks as a
matter of federal law. Printz, however, did not end the requirement that federally-
licensed firearms dealers must meet certain obligations under the Brady Act nor
did it suggest that the states could not or should not continue to perform the
checks. See Koog, supra (duties imposed upon federally-licensed firearms dealers
07/24/97 THU 18:07 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
4004
FROM :AR ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO
:
202 S14 2504
1997.07-24
14:32
#833 P.04/08
Colonel John R Bailey, Director
Arkansas State Police
Opinion No. 97-253
Page 3
are severable from requirement that local law enforcement officers conduct
background checks).
Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 12-12-1009 and 12-12-1011 grant the Arkansas State
Police the authority to disseminate conviction information to any nongovernmental
entity authorized by federal law to receive such information. Under the Brady Act,
a federally-licensed firearms dealer is authorized to receive information
concerning whether the receipt or possession of the handgun by the prospective
purchaser would be in violation of federal, state, or local law. 18 U.S.C. §
922(s)(1)(A)(ii), (s)(4) and (s)(5). Accordingly, the State Police may provide
conviction information to federally-licensed firearms dealers.
Without question, the Arkansas Crime Information Center is authorized to collect
and maintain criminal history information. See generally A.C.A. §§ 12-12-1001
and 1003. The General Assembly has specifically addressed the release of
information (dissemination) for criminal justice purposes, noncriminal justice
purposes, and other purposes. See A.C.A. §§ 12-12-1008 1010. Arkansas Code
Annotated § 12-12-1009(a) provides in part that "Conviction information shall be
made available for the following noncriminal justice purposes:
...
(2) To any
nongovernmental entity authorized either by the record subject in writing or by
state or federal law to receive such information." Conviction information is
defined in A.C.A. § 12-12-1001(3) as "criminal history information disclosing that
a person has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to, or was found guilty of, a
criminal offense in a court of law, together with sentencing information." Because
conviction information pursuant to a Brady request is being disseminated to a
federally-licensed firearms dealer rather than to a criminal justice agency, the
information is necessarily being made available for one of the enumerated
noncriminal justice purposes.
I
The clause "or federal" was not included in the original act, Act 1109 of 1993, but was inserted by Acts
37 and 38 of 1994 (2nd Ex. Sess.). It should also be noted that the use of the term "shall" in a statute
generally means the legislature intended mandatory compliance; therefore, it would appear that either the
Department of Arkansas State Police Identification Bureau or the Arkansas Crime Information Center must
make the information available. See A.C.A. § 12-12-1011 (Criminal history information for noncriminal
justice purposes may only be released by the Department of Arkansas State Police Identification Bureau or
the Arkansas Crime Information Center pursuant to the limitations contained in A.C.A. § 12-12-1009).
07/24/97
THU
18:07
FAX
202
514
7864
DOJ OPLIA
FROM :AR ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO
:
202 514 2504
1997,07-24
14:32
#833 P.05/08
Colonel John R. Bailey, Director
Arkansas State Police
Opinion No. 97-253
Page 4
Question 2 -- If you find that the previous question is answered in the affirmative,
does A.C.A. § 12-12-1012, or any other statute, allow the Arkansas State Police to
charge a fee for conducting a federally mandated Brady check?
It is my opinion that the Department of Arkansas State Police Identification
Bureau (Identification Bureau) is authorized to charge a fee for providing criminal
history information for noncriminal justice purposes. See A.C.A. § 12-12-1012.
The amount of such fee is to be determined jointly by the Identification Burcau
and the Arkansas Crime Information Center, but it may not exceed twenty dollars.
Id.
Question 3 -- Is the Arkansas State Police likely 10 prevail on the merits in
defending a case for illegal exaction if we resume the Brady background checks
and collect a fee under the foregoing statutes?
I must note initially that because the outcome of any litigation will turn largely
upon the evidence that is presented to the court, and upon the court's acceptance or
rejection of such evidence, I am not in a position to predict the likelihood of any
party's success in such litigation. It is, nevertheless, my opinion that the collection
of the fee that is authorized under A.C.A. § 12-12-1012 does not constitute an
"illegal exaction."
The prohibition against "illegal exactions" is set forth in Article 16, § 13 of the
Arkansas Constitution, which states: "Any citizen of any county, city or town may
institute suit in behalf of himself and all others interested, to protect the inhabitants
thereof against the enforcement of any illegal exactions whatever." The Arkansas
Supreme Court has recognized that an "illegal exaction" can take two forms: (1) a
misapplication of public funds and (2) an illegal tax. Pledger V. Featherlite
Precast Corp., 308 Ark. 124, 823 S.W.2d 852 (1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 826,
113 S.Ct. 82, 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992). The situation about which you have inquired
clearly does not involve the misapplication of public funds. Accordingly, the
question is whether the charge under consideration constitutes an "illegal tax."
It is my opinion that it does not. More specifically, it is my opinion that the charge
that is authorized under A.C.A. § 12-12-1012 constitutes a "fee" rather than a
"tax" and that therefore the "illegal exaction" clause of the Arkansas Constitution
(Article 16, § 13) is not implicated.
07/24/97 THU 18:08 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
006
FROM :AR ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO
:
202 514 2504
1997,07-24
14:33
#833 P.06/08
Colonel John R Bailey, Director
Arkansas State Police
Opinion No. 97-253
Page 5
The Arkansas Supreme Court has recognized a distinction between a "tax" and a
"fee." In City of Marion V. Baioni, 312 Ark. 423, 850 S.W.2d 1 (1993), the court
succinctly explained the distinction as follows:
The distinction between a tax and a fee is that
government imposes a tax for general revenue
purposes, but a fee is imposed in the government's
exercise of its police powers. City of North Little Rock
V. Graham, 278 Ark. 547, 647 S.W.2d 452 (1983).
See also Barnhart V. City of Fayetteville, 321 Ark. 197, 900 S.W.2d 539 (1995).
The above-quoted language from City of Marion V. Baioni, as well as the
authorities cited by the court therein, indicates that if a charge is imposed for the
purpose of providing specific services in the exercise of governmental police
power, the charge constitutes a "fce" rather than a "Tax." Under these authorities,
the "illegal exaction" clause will not be implicated if the charge is a "fee" rather
than a "tax."
The charge that is authorized by the provisions of A.C.A. § 12-12-1012 is, in my
opinion, a "fee" rather than a "tax," and, therefore, the imposition of the charge
cannot constitute an "illegal exaction."
My conclusion regarding this matter is based upon the fact that the provisions of
A.C.A. § 12-12-1012 designate specific uses for the charge, as follows:
(b)(1) All fees shall be deposited immediately in the
State Treasury as special revenue to the credit of the
State Police Equipment Fund, which is hereby created
on the books of the Treasurer of State, Auditor of
State, and Chief Fiscal Officer of the State, there to be
used for the acquisition of an automated fingerprint
identification system.
(2) Effective July 1, 1997, such fees shall then be
credited fifty percent (50%) to the Crime Information
007
07/24/97 THU 18:08 FAI 202 514 7864 TO
DOJ OPLIA
TURNEY GENERAL
:
202 514 2504
1997,07-24
14:33
#833 P.07/08
Colonel John R. Bailey, Director
Arkansas State Police
Opinion No. 97-253
Page 6
System Fund and fifty percent (50%) to the State
Police Equipment Fund, there to be used for the
continued operation and expansion of the automated
criminal history system and for the operation and
expansion of the automated fingerprint identification
[sic] system, subject to legislative appropriations. Any
balance in the State Police Equipment Fund on June
30, 1997, may also be used for the operation and
expansion of the automated fingerprint identification
system.
(3) Special revenues deposited in the Crime
Information System Fund and the State Police
Equipment Fund may be used for personal services and
operating expenses as provided by law, for conducting
criminal background checks for noncriminal justice
purposes, and such special revenues unused at the end
of any fiscal year shall be carried forward.
A.C.A. § 12-12-1012(b), as amended by Acts 447 and 1102 of 1997.
Because, as indicated by the above-quoted statutory language, the proceeds of the
charge authorized by A.C.A. § 12-12-1012 are to be used for the purpose of
providing specific services in the exercise of governmental police power, rather
than being used for general governmental purposes, I must conclude that the
charge constitutes a "fee" rather than a "tax." Accordingly, it is my opinion that
the imposition of the charge cannot implicate the "illegal exaction" clause of the
Arkansas Constitution.
After Printz, although the State Police has no federal obligation to comply with the
Brady Act, it has the state statutory authority to provide federally-licensed firearms
dealers information consistent with their federal obligation under the Brady Act.
In addition, it has the state statutory authority to charge a fee for providing such
information.
07/24/97 THU 18:08 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
5.
008
FROM :AR ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO
:
202 514 2504
1997,07-24
14:34
#833 P.03/08
Colonel John R Bailey, Director
Arkansas State Police
Opinion No. 97-253
Page 7
The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Assistant
Attorney General Warren T. Readnour.
Wash Attorney WINSTON Sincerely General BRYANT Prepect
WB: WTR/cyh
07/24/97 THU 18:17 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
DENNIS BURKE
001
STATE
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
Director
Washington, D.C. 20530
July 24, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Rahm Emanuel
Assistant to the President
Bruce Reed
Assistant to the President and
Director, Domestic Policy Council
Mickey Ibarra
Assistant to the President and
Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
Maria Echaveste
Assistant to the President and
Director of Public Liaison
Jose Cerda
Senior Policy Advisor
Domestic Policy Council
NM6
FROM:
Nicholas M. Gess
Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
Department of Justice
SUBJECT:
National Insta Check (NICS) System
Attached please find copies of materials regarding the Brady
Handgun Control Act and the National Insta Check (NICS) system
which we have sent to all Governors, state attorneys general and
appropriate advocacy groups.
Please do not hesitate to call me on 514-3465 if you have
any questions.
Enclosures
07/24/97 THU 18:17 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
DENNIS BURKE
002
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
Office of the Director
Washington, D.C. 20530
July 24, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR:
All State Attorneys General
All Chief Prosecutors
UMB
FROM:
Nicholas M. Gess
Director
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
SUBJECT:
Implementation of the National Insta-Check
System
Last week, representatives of state, county and local law
enforcement met with Attorney General Janet Reno and Secretary of
the Treasury Robert E. Rubin to discuss the continued
implementation of the Brady Handgun Control Act (Brady Act) in
light of a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court,
Printz V. United States.
As most of you are aware, effective December 1, 1998, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation will operate a National Insta
Check System (NICS) which will replace the current system in
which state and local law enforcement conduct the background
checks. This system will also be a boon to the criminal justice
system inasmuch as it will protect law enforcement officers by
allowing better criminal history checks in connection with
routine law enforcement contacts such as traffic stops and the
public because judges will have better information available when
setting bail and imposing sentence.
However, the quality of the criminal records will only be as
good as the quality of the records submitted by state criminal
history systems. At the meeting, Assistant Attorney General
Eleanor D. Acheson spoke on the issue of NICS and the important
role which state and local officials will play. We have received
a number of requests for copies of her remarks and thought that
they might be of interest to you. A copy is enclosed. We hope
that these materials are of assistance to you.
If you have any questions, please contact Deputy Director
Matthew L. Levine on (202) 514-3465.
Enclosure
07/24/97 THU 18:17 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
DENNIS BURKE
003
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
Office of the Director
Washington, D.C. 20530
July 24, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR:
All Governors
NMB
FROM:
Nicholas M. Gess
Director
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
SUBJECT
Implementation of the National Insta-Check
System
Last week, representatives of state, county and local law
enforcement met with Attorney General Janet Reno and Secretary of
the Treasury Robert E. Rubin to discuss the continued
implementation of the Brady Handgun Control Act (Brady Act) in
light of a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court,
Printz V. United States.
As most of you are aware, effective December 1, 1998, the
Federal Bureau of Invéstigation will operate a National Insta
Check System (NICS) which will replace the current system in
which state and local law enforcement conduct the background
checks. This system will also be a boon to the criminal justice
system inasmuch as it will protect law enforcement officers by
allowing better criminal history checks in connection with
routine law enforcement contacts such as traffic stops and the
public because judges will have better. information available when
setting bail and imposing sentence.
However, the quality of the criminal records will only be as
good as the quality of the records submitted by state criminal
history systems. At the meeting, Assistant Attorney General
Eleanor D. Acheson spoke on the issue of NICS and the important
role which state and local officials will play. We have received
a number of requests for copies of her remarks and thought that
they might be of interest to you. A copy is enclosed. We hope
that these materials are of assistance to you.
If you have any questions, please contact Deputy Director
Matthew L. Levine on (202) 514-3465.
Enclosure
07/24/97 THU 18:18 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
DENNIS BURKE
004
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
Office of the Director
Washington, D.C. 20530
July 24, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR:
All Interested Groups
NMG
FROM:
Nicholas M. Gess
Director
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
SUBJECT:
Implementation of the National Insta-Check
System
Last week, representatives of state, county and local law
enforcement met with Attorney General Janet Reno and Secretary of
the Treasury Robert E. Rubin to discuss the continued
implementation of the Brady Handgun Control Act (Brady Act) in
light of a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court,
Printz V. United States.
As most of you are aware, effective December 1, 1998, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation will operate a National Insta
Check System (NICS) which will replace the current system in
which state and local law enforcement conduct the background
checks. This system will also be a boon to the criminal justice
system inasmuch as it will protect law enforcement officers by
allowing better criminal history checks in connection with
routine law enforcement contacts such as traffic stops and the
public because judges will have better information available when
setting bail and imposing sentence.
However, the quality of the criminal records will only be as
good as the quality of the records submitted by state criminal
history systems. At the meeting, Assistant Attorney General
Eleanor D. Acheson spoke on the issue of NICS and the important
role which state and local officials will play. We have received
a number of requests for copies of her remarks and thought that
they might be of interest to you. A copy is enclosed. We hope
that these materials are of assistance to you.
If you have any questions, please contact Deputy Director
Matthew L. Levine on (202) 514-3465.
Enclosure
07/24/97 THU 18:18 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
DENNIS BURKE
4
005
NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM
REMARKS OF ELEANOR D. ACHESON
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CONSULTATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT
CONCERNING THE BRADY LAW
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
JULY 16, 1997
I.
INTRODUCTION - THE NICS IS ON SCHEDULE.
The Brady Act requires the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System, known by the acronym "NICS" to be operative by November 30, 1998.
The Justice Department, with the FBI at the forefront, has been working in
close cooperation with the ATF to develop and implement the NICS system;
and we are on schedule to meet the November 30, 1998 deadline. When it
goes on-line, the NICS, which will draw principally on existing federal and
state records systems, will have the capability to search state and federal files
for information on persons prohibited from possessing a firearm -- within 30
seconds.
II.
THE STATES WILL PLAY A VITAL ROLE IN THE NICS.
The NICS builds on the tradition of decentralized maintenance of criminal history
records by state and local entities. The states, through the Brady Act Task Group,
have played an important role in developing the design of the NICS, and the states
will have a primary role in collecting, storing, and disseminating criminal history
information.
07/24/97 THU 18:18 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
-++ DENNIS BURKE
5
006
III. HOW THE NICS WORKS.
The NICS will operate as follows: When a person goes to a licensed firearms dealer
to buy a gun - both handguns and long guns will be covered by the permit provisions
of the Act -- the dealer will call a point of contact (POC), who in most cases will be a
state law enforcement officer. The dealer will provide the POC with the prospective
purchaser's identifying information, and the POC will check whether the prospective
gun buyer is prohibited under state and local records from getting a gun either because
the person has a criminal history or falls within another prohibited category.
If the state and local check does not disclose any disqualifying information, the second
step of the NICS check looks at national databases that are already in existence. The
most important of these is the Interstate Identification Index (III), an ongoing
federal/state initiative, which contains federal criminal records and provides leads to
more than 25 million state and federal criminal history records. Additional databases
are the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) Hot Files, which include
information on persons prohibited from obtaining a firearm because they are subject to
a protective order, fugitives from justice, or felons under a deportation order. In
addition to these databases, the NICS will also check the "NICS Index," which will
contain records that are provided by federal agencies on the other categories of persons
prohibited by the Gun Control Act from obtaining a firearm, such as persons who have
renounced their citizenship, illegal aliens, or unlawful users of a controlled substance.
2
07/24/97 THU 18:18 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
DENNIS BURKE
007
Because the NICS will rely heavily on information maintained by the states and
because state records on the categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms
are not complete, the automated system will not always provide definitive information
within 30 seconds on whether a person is prohibited from purchasing a gun. In this
case, further research by the POC will be required. For example, state criminal history
records may indicate that the person has been convicted of a crime, but local
information may be needed to determine whether the crime is a felony. In such cases,
the POC typically will be able to determine a prospective purchaser's eligibility within
a few hours. The Justice Department fully expects that the vast majority of NICS
checks will be performed within 30 seconds.
IV.
UPDATED CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS ARE ESSENTIAL.
Ultimately, the NICS system will only be as good as the state criminal history records
on which it depends. Therefore, it is essential to improve the accuracy, completeness,
and automation of state criminal history records. To assist the states in accomplishing
this goal, the Justice Department has already distributed $112 million to the states to
help them improve their criminal history records under the National Criminal History
Improvement Program (NCHIP). At the national level, the Justice Department is
working with the states to make the III even more comprehensive. Presently, thirty-
two states participate in the III, and the majority of remaining states will be part of the
III by the end of 1998.
3
07/24/97 THU 18:19 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
f
DENNIS BURKE
I
008
V.
IT IS CRUCIAL FOR STATES TO DESIGNATE POCs.
State interests will best be served when the states designate state officials to serve as
POCs for the NICS system, although the FBI will serve as POC for any state that
declines to designate a state POC. When states provide POCs, NICS checks will be
more up to date, accurate, and efficient. The state POCs will likely have access to
state and local records that are unavailable to a federal POC, and the state POCs will
have a greater familiarity with state and local records in their jurisdiction and can
interpret these records more easily than a federal POC. Moreover, it is greatly to the
states' advantage to designate a state POC, because the states will have greater control
in determining who is barred from obtaining a firearm within the jurisdiction, and the
state POCs will have the ability to enforce state laws that prohibit additional categories
of individuals from obtaining a firearm.
VI. CONCLUSION - THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUED STATE
PARTICIPATION.
The Justice Department, the FBI, ATF, and many other federal, state, and local law
enforcement officials are engaged in extensive efforts to make the NICS as effective
and efficient as possible when it goes on-line next year. The participation of state and
local law enforcement in designing the NICS thus far has been essential and the
continued input of state and local law enforcement is needed to make the NICS system
live up to its potential. In particular, state and local enforcement should encourage
state criminal justice agencies to designate state POCs and update criminal history
records. The NICS will be more effective and less burdensome than the interim Brady
4
07/24/97 THU 18:19 FAX 202 514 7864
DOJ OPLIA
DENNIS BURKE
I
009
system, which already prevents approximately 6,600 felons and other prohibited
persons from purchasing handguns each month. The Brady Act has already reduced
crime and saved lives. With the continued valuable participation and support of the
states, the NICS will be even more effective in preventing prohibited persons from
obtaining firearms and, thus, reducing crime, saving lives of law enforcement and
civilians alike and making our communities safer.
5