PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 15, 2013
Personalized Handgun Safety Act - Requires the Director of the National Institute of Justice to make grants to qualified entities (states or local governments, organizations, or institutions of higher education) to develop technology for personalized handguns (a handgun that enables only the authorized user to fire it). Requires a recipient to use not less than 70% of grant funds to develop technology for personalized handguns. Allows such entity to use not more than: (1) 20% of such funds to develop technology for retrofitted personalized handguns, and (2) 10% of such funds for administrative costs. Provides for one-year grant awards, subject to renewal.
Directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to promulgate a consumer product safety standard providing a specified timetable by which handguns manufactured, sold, offered for sale, traded, transferred, shipped, leased, or distributed in the United States must be personalized handguns or retrofitted personalized handguns, depending on the date of manufacture. Exempts antique firearms and firearms owned by the Department of Defense (DOD). Requires the cost of retrofitting a handgun to be borne by the manufacturer if the manufacturer is operational at the time the retrofit is required. Makes appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ) available to the Attorney General for payments to reimburse handgun manufacturers for the costs of retrofitting handguns. Authorizes an official or agency of a state to bring a civil action in U.S. district court against a handgun seller or manufacturer on behalf of residents adversely affected by a violation of such standard.
Amends the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to exclude from the definition of "qualified product" any handgun manufactured after two years after enactment of this Act that is not a personalized handgun or retrofitted personalized handgun.
People & committees
Rep. Tierney, John F. [D-MA-6] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2005 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2005 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2005 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2005 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.