Overview
Title
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022-Criteria for National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) Background Checks of Firearm Handlers
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Justice wants to let certain gun stores use a system to check if their employees are allowed to handle guns, which is like making sure everyone playing a game follows the rules so nobody gets hurt.
Summary AI
The United States Department of Justice has proposed new rules to allow certain firearm dealers to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for conducting background checks on employees who handle firearms, as part of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. This proposal aims to prevent firearms from reaching individuals prohibited by law from possessing them, by enabling checks on employees who might access or use firearms through their work. The rules clarify how these checks, known as Firearm Handler Background Checks (FHCs), will be conducted, including what information can trigger a "Pass" or "Did Not Pass" notice and how individuals can appeal a "Did Not Pass" result. Comments on the proposal can be submitted until January 13, 2025.
Abstract
The United States Department of Justice ("Department") proposes several amendments to regulations pertaining to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System ("NICS" or "system") of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). The proposed amendments implement parts of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act ("BSCA"), which, in relevant part, require the Attorney General to promulgate regulations authorizing certain Federal Firearm Licensees ("FFLs" or "licensees") to use NICS for purposes of voluntarily conducting employment background checks relating to certain current or prospective employees. As this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM") describes in more detail, the Department proposes allowing FFLs to use NICS for employment background checks of their "firearm handlers" and other "eligible employees."
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
This document from the Federal Register is a proposal from the United States Department of Justice to amend the regulations concerning the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), operated by the FBI. The proposed rule specifically aims to allow certain gun dealers and manufacturers to use the NICS for voluntary background checks on their employees who may access or handle firearms, in line with the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) of 2022.
General Summary
The United States Department of Justice seeks to implement a new regulatory framework allowing Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) to voluntarily check current or prospective employees using the NICS. The introduction of these Firearm Handler Background Checks (FHCs) is designed to ensure that individuals prohibited from possessing firearms do not gain access to them through employment.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One of the principal issues with this proposal is its complexity, laden with dense legal and regulatory language that may be challenging for ordinary citizens to decipher. The document details how these background checks will be conducted and describes the outcomes ("Pass," "Pending," and "Did Not Pass") and provides a route for appealing these outcomes. However, it leaves the decision to use these checks at the discretion of the FFLs, which could lead to inconsistent application across the industry.
Operationally, there is concern that the increased number of checks might demand more resources from the NICS Section, but the proposal does not offer a detailed cost analysis or plan for resource allocation. Moreover, the potential negative impacts on employees who could find themselves subject to these background checks are not fully explored, especially concerning their impact on employment opportunities.
The definition of "eligible employee" is also vague and could lead to misunderstandings among FFLs. Additionally, the document acknowledges that FFLs might have an economic incentive to rely on the free NICS checks instead of using private services, but stops short of weighing the broader implications of a system shift.
While the proposed rule allows for voluntary interaction with state, local, and Tribal agencies during the processing of "Pending" checks, it fails to specify any obligatory role or incentives for these agencies to participate, potentially affecting the efficiency and speed of the process.
Public Impact
Broadly, this proposal intends to enhance public safety by preventing prohibited individuals from gaining access to firearms through employment. By enabling firearm businesses to screen employees more effectively, the rule could decrease illegal activities such as straw purchasing and firearm trafficking at their sources.
Impact on Stakeholders
For FFLs, the ability to conduct employment background checks via NICS without charge presents a valuable tool for ensuring compliance and safety. However, the voluntary nature of the checks may lead to selective use, allowing discrepancies between businesses that choose to implement such checks and those that do not.
Employees and job applicants in the firearms industry might face increased scrutiny under these new rules, which could impact their employment opportunities. Those who "Did Not Pass" an FHC could experience negative employment consequences, even if their role does not directly involve handling firearms.
For state, local, and Tribal agencies, the proposal may create additional inquiries without offering clear directives or resources, potentially leading to variances in how these cases are handled across different jurisdictions.
Overall, while the proposal seeks to bolster community safety regarding firearm access, it also highlights administrative and operational concerns that could require further refinement to avoid unintended consequences.
Financial Assessment
The proposed rule regarding amendments to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) references financial implications in two primary areas: potential fines for misuse and the impact on governmental budgets.
Fines for Misuse
The document specifies that if a person or entity intentionally provides false information to NICS to secure a favorable outcome—referred to as a "Proceed" response—they could be penalized with a fine of up to $10,000. Additionally, such actions might result in the loss of access to the NICS. This financial deterrent aims to maintain the integrity of the background check system. This aligns with the broader rule's goal of ensuring compliance with legal standards, but it does not delve extensively into how this fine might also serve as a deterrent against misuse and the potential savings in preventing fraudulent activities.
Unfunded Mandates Impact
The proposal also addresses the potential financial burden on governments and private entities, stating that it will not lead to expenditures exceeding $100 million in any one year. Furthermore, the rule asserts it will not dramatically or uniquely affect small governmental bodies. This statement suggests an effort to minimize the economic impact of the proposed regulation changes. However, the document acknowledges operational concerns, such as possible costs associated with additional staffing or increased background checks, relevant to one of the issues about the potential lack of specific cost estimates, which might leave stakeholders unprepared for any unexpected financial demands.
Relation to Identified Issues
While the document does not provide explicit spending or appropriation amounts aside from fines, it hints at possible operational costs that could arise from the increased use of the NICS for background checks. This pertains to one of the issues where the document notes the potential economic incentives for licensees to switch from private background check services to NICS due to the latter's free status. This switch could lead to a higher volume of background checks through NICS, thereby potentially increasing the system's operational costs indirectly.
Additionally, while there is a mention of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, the document stops short of detailing any specific allocations or financial assistance to aid States or tribal agencies that choose to participate in reviewing "Pending" responses, indicating a reliance on voluntary participation without financial incentive.
Overall, the explicit financial references in the document are limited to punitive measures and broad financial impact assurances. They aim to convey that the rule change is fiscally cautious while maintaining necessary legal enforcement through fines. However, the indirect financial implications, particularly concerning operational costs and economic incentives, remain less explicitly defined, potentially leaving room for unexpected financial impacts on various stakeholders.
Issues
• The document contains complex legal language and regulatory references that could be difficult for the general public to understand without legal expertise.
• The proposed rule allows for the use of NICS for voluntary employment background checks but does not mandate it, leaving potential inconsistencies in application among different licensees.
• There are operational concerns about the impact on the NICS Section, particularly regarding the potential need for additional staffing due to increased checks, but specific cost estimates are not provided.
• The document anticipates potential negative impacts on employees who may be subject to additional background checks, which could affect their employment opportunities, but does not address mitigation strategies for these impacts.
• The definition of 'eligible employee' might be interpreted ambiguously, requiring further clarification to ensure understanding across all licensees.
• The document acknowledges potential economic incentives for licensees to use NICS due to the free nature of the checks, which might result in reliance on NICS instead of private services, yet the implications of this are not fully explored.
• The proposal states that the rule accommodates voluntary input from State, local, and Tribal agencies during the research of 'Pending' responses, but it does not define any obligations or incentives for these agencies to participate.
• The appeal process described in the document aligns with existing NICS procedures but lacks detailed guidance on how to handle appeals outside the 'Denied' or 'Did Not Pass' responses.
• The rule's severability clause is broad, stating that provisions are independent unless legally challenged, but it does not clarify how interconnected rules might be affected by a court ruling invalidating specific sections.
• Potential administrative burdens on small entities from conducting frequent background checks are acknowledged, yet no detailed analysis or support mechanisms are proposed.