A bill to amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to establish standards for determining whether the national instant criminal background check system is operational and to amend section 503(a) of title I of the Omnibus Safe Streets and Crime Control Act of 1968 to require a State to certify that the State has established a plan under which the State will provide to the Department of Justice notice of the adjudication of any person as a mental defective or the commitment of any person to a mental institution.
Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 341.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 24, 1993
Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) shorten to 48 months the period that a five-day waiting period and background check are to be imposed pending establishment of a national instant criminal background check system (system) for handgun transfers; and (2) provide that system check requirements shall not apply until notification by the Attorney General to licensees that the system is operational and capable of supplying information immediately. Makes the latter provision inapplicable to a firearm transfer between a licensee and another person who has presented a firearm permit meeting certain conditions. Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish the system within 24 (currently, 60) months after the enactment of such Act; and (2) notify each licensee in, and the chief law enforcement officer of, a State at any time of a determination that the State is in compliance with the timetable set for that State. Authorizes a prospective transferee to submit to the Attorney General information to correct, clarify, or supplement records of the system with respect to the prospective transferee. Requires the Attorney General to immediately consider the information, to investigate further, and to correct erroneous information and give notice of the error to any Federal department or agency or any State that was the source of such records. Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to include among State application requirements for drug control and system improvement grants a certification that the State has established a plan under which the State will provide the Department of Justice with notification of adjudications of persons as mental defectives and of commitments to mental institutions.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 2, 2021. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.1785 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.1785 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.1785 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.1785 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.