Congressman Paul is a strong supporter of the second amendment. He notes that the founding fathers did want Americans to own firearms for hunting, but that they also understood the need for each person to protect themselves and the need for the populace to overthrow a potential tyrannical government.
In 2003, Congressman Paul introduced legislation to remove the 5 day waiting period to own guns and to remove the "instant" background check at gun shows. He notes that this instant check allows the government to create a database of gun owners.
Congressman Paul has warned that the UN and other entities do not like the second amendment and with national politicians avoiding the issue of gun control as a known loser, these foreign entities represent the greatest threat to the second amendment.
Congressman Paul opposed the DC gun ban and supported the Supreme Court's ruling in DC vs Heller to overturn the ban. He noted prior to the ruling that if the court found the restriction reasonable, the second amendment would indeed be in trouble.
Congressman Paul has repeatedly stated that an armed society produces less crime than an unarmed society. He points to DC as having a high crime rate and a large number of restrictions on guns. He has also noted that people need to stop believing that the government will protect them in all cases. He notes that if the pilots on airplanes were known to be armed or the airline policies would have been to fight back against terrorists, then the 9/11 attacks may not have occurred.
While in office, Congressman Paul has voted against every gun law that has come up for a vote. This includes an amendment to close the loophole for background checks at gun shows, an amendment to to allow a lawsuit against the seller if the seller should have known the purchaser intended to use the gun illegally, and an amendment to permit lawsuits for negligence purposes.
Despite being a supporter of the second amendment, Congressman Paul voted against the Protection in Lawful Commerce Act. He explains this vote by noting that establishing such a law in civil liability was outside the bounds of the federal government according to the Constitution. While he supported the intent, he opposed the law.
During his time in office, Congressman Paul has also sponsored or co-sponsored a number of pro gun rights bills. These include co-sponsoring legislation to restore second amendment rights to D.C., sponsoring legislation to repeal the assault weapons ban and repeal the waiting period (2003), and sponsoring legislation to repeal the Brady Bill.
Restore the Second Amendment
In January of 2003, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about legislation that he was introducing to eliminate the 5 day waiting period and the instant background check.
Restore the Second Amendment
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, January 9, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I rise to restore the right the founding fathers saw as the guarantee of every other right by introducing the Second Amendment Protection Act. This legislation reverses the steady erosion of the right to keep and bear arms by repealing unconstitutional laws that allow power-hungry federal bureaucrats to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Specifically, my legislation repeals the five-day waiting period and the "instant" background check, which enables the federal government to compile a database of every gun owner in America. My legislation also repeals the misnamed ban on "semi-automatic" weapons, which bans entire class of firearms for no conceivable reason beside the desire of demagogic politicians to appear tough on crime. Finally, my bill amends the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deleting the "sporting purposes" test, which allows the Treasury Secretary to infringe on second amendment rights by classifying a firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun) as a "destructive device" simply because the Secretary believes the gun to be "non-sporting."
Thomas Jefferson said "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; ...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Jefferson, and all of the Founders, would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising their right and duty to keep and bear arms. I hope my colleagues will join me in upholding the Founders' vision for a free society by cosponsoring the Second Amendment Restoration Act.
Protection in Lawful Commerce
In April of 2003, Congressman Paul issued a statement noting his reasons for voting against the Protection in Lawful Commerce Act. Congressman Paul notes that while he sympathizes with the proponents of the legislation, the bill exceeds the Constitutional limits concerning civil liability.
Gun Rights vs. Centralization
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, April 9, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a firm believer in the Second amendment and an opponent of all federal gun laws. In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (HR 153), which repeals misguided federal gun control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban. I believe the Second amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties. However, Mr. Speaker, another foundation of those liberties is the oath all of us took to respect constitutional limits on federal power. While I understand and sympathize with the goals of the proponents of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (HR 1036), this bill exceeds those constitutional limitations, and so I must oppose it.
It is long past time for Congress to recognize that not every problem requires a federal solution. This country's founders understood the need to separate power between federal, state, and local governments to maximize individual liberty and make government most responsive to citizens. The reservation of most powers to the states strictly limited the role of the federal government in dealing with civil liability matters; it reserved jurisdiction over matters of civil tort, such as alleged gun-related negligence suits, to the state legislatures.
While I am against the federalization of tort reform, I must voice my complete disapproval of the very nature of these suits brought against gun manufacturers. Lawsuits for monetary damages from gun violence should be filed against the perpetrators of those crimes, not gun manufacturers! Holding manufacturers liable for harm they could neither foresee nor prevent is irresponsible and outlandish. The company that makes a properly functioning product in accordance with the law is acting lawfully, and thus should not be taken to court because of misuse by the purchaser (or in many cases, by a criminal who stole the weapon). Clearly these lawsuits are motivated not by a concern for justice, but by a search for deep pockets and a fanatical anti-gun political agenda.
However, Mr. Speaker, the most disturbing aspect of these lawsuits is the idea that guns, which are inanimate objects, are somehow responsible for crimes. HR 1036 shifts the focus away from criminals and their responsibility for their actions. It adds to the cult of irresponsibility that government unfortunately so often promotes. This further erodes the ethics of individual responsibility for one's own actions that must form the basis of a free and moral society. The root problem of violence is not the gun in the hand, but the gun in the heart: each person is accountable for the deeds that flow out of his or her own heart. One can resort to any means available to commit a crime, such as knives, fertilizer, pipes, or baseball bats. Should we start suing the manufacturers of these products as well because they are used in crimes? Of course not — the implications are preposterous.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would remind my fellow supporters of gun rights that using unconstitutional federal powers to restrict state gun lawsuits makes it more likely those same powers will be used to restrict our gun rights. Despite these lawsuits, the number one threat to gun ownership remains a federal government freed of its constitutional restraints. Expanding that government in any way, no matter how just the cause may seem, is not in the interests of gun owners or lovers of liberty.
In conclusion, while I share the concern over the lawsuits against gun manufacturers, which inspired HR 1036, this bill continues the disturbing trend toward federalization of tort law. Enhancing the power of the federal government is not in the long-term interests of defenders of the Second amendment and other constitutional liberties. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.
World Wide Gun Control Movement
In June of 2006, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to discuss the gun control movement that is being put in place world wide.
The Worldwide Gun Control Movement June 26, 2006
The United Nations is holding a conference beginning this week in New York that ironically coincides with our national 4th of July holiday. It’s ironic because those attending the conference want to do away with one of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms—the right to bear arms. The stated goal of the conference is to eliminate trading in small arms, but the real goal is to advance a worldwide gun control movement that ultimately supercedes national laws, including our own 2nd Amendment. Many UN observers believe the conference will set the stage in coming years for an international gun control treaty.
Fortunately, U.S. gun owners have responded with an avalanche of letters to the American delegation to the conference, asking that none of our tax dollars be used to further UN anti-gun proposals. But we cannot discount the growing power of international law, whether through the UN, the World Trade Organization, or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties. Gun rights advocates must understand that the forces behind globalism are hostile toward our Constitution and national sovereignty in general. Our 2nd Amendment means nothing to UN officials.
Domestically, the gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it’s a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last summer’s hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.
So it makes sense that perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad. For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France!
It’s no surprise that UN officials dislike what they view as our gun culture. After all, these are the people who placed a huge anti-gun statue on American soil at UN headquarters in New York. The statue depicts a pistol with the barrel tied into a knot, a not-too-subtle message aimed squarely at the U.S. They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment.
But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda? The UN claims to serve human freedom and dignity, but gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
The DC Gun Ban
In March of 2007, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to discuss the DC gun ban that had recently passed a federal court.
The DC Gun Ban March 12, 2007
Last Friday a federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2nd Amendment rights in the nation's capital. It appears the Court rejected the District of Columbia 's nonsensical argument that the 2nd Amendment confers only a "collective right," something gun control advocates have asserted for years. Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1 st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers.
Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees. But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups. Rights, by definition, are individual. "Group rights" is an oxymoron. Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith, or merchant to be armed? Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the King's soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them. In the 1700s, militias were local groups made up of ordinary citizens. They were not under federal control! As a practical matter, many of them were barely under the control of colonial or state authorities. When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a "well-regulated militia," it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so.
The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed. In fact, James Madison argued in Federalist paper 46 that common citizens should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed standing federal army. Today, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe-- as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book "More Guns, Less Crime," scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control--like Washington DC--experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation's capital, where the individual's right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed. Understand that residents of DC can be convicted of a felony and put in prison simply for having a gun in their home, even if they live in a very dangerous neighborhood.
The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People's lives and safety are at stake. Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.
In February of 2008, Congressman Paul issued a press statement noting a letter that he and other Congressmen had sent to President Obama asking him to sign on to an amicus brief in support of ending the DC gun ban.
Congressman Paul Takes Aim at DC Gun Ban
February 7, 2008
For immediate release
Washington, DC - Congressman Ron Paul has signed on to a letter to the President asking that an amicus curiae brief filed by U.S Solicitor General Paul D. Clement on DC v. Heller, otherwise known as the DC Gun Ban Case, be withdrawn on the basis that the reasoning within, were it to be accepted by the Supreme Court, leaves open the door for more encroachments on individuals’ Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
The brief in question argues that categorical bans of virtually all self-defense firearms may be upheld as constitutional if a court determines that these prohibitions are “reasonable” restrictions of constitutional rights. The reasonability standard is the lowest standard of constitutional review our courts utilize, a much lesser hurdle than the “strict scrutiny” review that courts use in many cases in which regulations threaten individual rights.
The letter in opposition to the Clement brief contends:
“If the Supreme Court finds that the D.C. gun ban is a “reasonable” limitation of Second Amendment rights, the Court could create a dangerous precedent for the nation in the future. Such a decision could open the door to further regulation on American citizens’ Second Amendment rights on a large scale.” Congressman Paul, as a strict constitutionalist and in keeping with his strong record on gun rights, has signed on to another brief submitted by several members of Congress which asks the Supreme Court to uphold the lower courts decision and allow the precedent of applying a stricter standard of review for gun control cases to stand.
Also in February of 2008, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address the situation concerning the DC gun ban.
Second Amendment Battle in DC
As a United States Congressman, I take my oath to uphold all of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights very seriously. Unfortunately, too many in Washington DC believe they can pick-and-choose which provisions of the constitution they can uphold. For example, many politicians, judges, and bureaucrats believe they have the power to disregard our right to own guns, even though the second amendment explicitly guarantees the people's right to "keep and bear arms."
Like the Founding Fathers, I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to a free society. Where law-abiding citizens are most freely allowed to defend themselves, communities are safer, while crime rises when law-abiding people's access to firearms is restricted. Gun laws only disarm those who respect the law. Those with criminal tendencies do not turn in their weapons and reform their ways because government bureaucrats enact statutes that tell them to. Gun control laws turn peaceful citizens into sitting ducks for criminals to prey upon.
Ironically, one of the most draconian gun laws in the nation is in the nation's capital. Banning guns did not make DC safer. In fact crime in DC rose after the gun ban went into place! Fortunately, last year, a federal court struck down DC's gun ban in the case of DC v. Heller. This is the first time in years a court found a gun control law violated the second amendment. However, victory is not secured. The city of DC has appealed and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. If the lower court's decision is upheld, law abiding citizens should once again be allowed to defend themselves in DC and I would expect it to become a much safer city. It would also set a very positive precedent that could affect gun laws all over the country.
However, a Supreme Court decision that the District of Columbia 's gun laws are a "reasonable" infringement on constitutional rights could severely setback the gun rights movement. This is why I have signed on to a brief headed by Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and signed by a majority of Congress asking the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court's decision and take a stand for stricter standards of constitutional review for gun laws. I am pleased to work with Senator Hutchison, and so many of my other colleagues, on this important issue. As a member of the Second Amendment Caucus, I will continue to work with those of my colleagues who support gun rights and grassroots activists to defend the Second Amendment Rights of Americans.
In June of 2008, Congressman Paul issued a press statement noting his support for the decision that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional in the Heller case.
Congressman Paul Reacts to DC v. Heller For Immediate Release
June 26, 2008
Washington , DC - Congressman Ron Paul made the following statement today in reaction to the landmark Supreme Court decision:
“Today is an exciting day for the Bill of Rights as the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case that individuals do indeed have a Constitutional right to own guns. I am pleased with this ruling. As a strong proponent of 2nd Amendment rights it is encouraging to see the Supreme Court defining this important right as an individual right against federal intrusion. Gun control laws virtually guarantee that only criminals and tyrants remain armed which, like concentration of power, causes crime and tyranny to increase. However, we must now stand guard to ensure this decision does not result in the creeping federalization of gun restrictions.”
Campaign Video
In a 2008 campaign video, Congressman Paul discusses that second amendment rights apply not only to hunters, but that the founders wanted the people to be armed to defend against an abusive government. He notes that the lack of respect for the second amendment contributed to the 9/11 attacks.
Question after debate
When asked about the second amendment after a Presidential debate, Congressman Paul notes that the American people should not be dependent on government for protection. He notes that ultimate protection comes from the person. Congressman Paul also states that people need to protect themselves from government.
Google Interview
In a 2008 google interview with candidates, Congressman Paul notes that each company (such as google) should have the right to allow or deny people to carry weapons on their property.
Gun Control and Violence
In January of 2011, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address the recent shooting of Congresswoman Giffords in Arizona and calls to address gun violence.
On Gun Control and Violence The terrible violence in Arizona last weekend prompted much national discussion on many issues. All Americans are united in their sympathies for the victims and their families. All wonder what could motivate such a horrible act. However, some have attempted to use this tragedy to discredit philosophical adversaries or score political points. This sort of opportunism is simply despicable.
We are fortunate to live in a society where violence is universally denounced. Not one public official or commentator has attempted to justify this reprehensible act, yet the newspapers, internet, and airwaves are full of people trying to claim it was somehow motivated by someone else’s political rhetoric. Most disturbing are the calls to use government power to censor certain forms of speech, and even outlaw certain types of criticism of public officials. This was the completely apolitical act of a violent and disturbed man. How sad that the attempted murder of the Congresswoman who had just read the First Amendment on the House floor would be used in efforts to chill free speech! Perhaps some would feel safer if the Alien and Sedition Acts were reinstated.
Also troubling are the renewed calls for stricter gun control laws, and for government to “do something” to somehow prevent similar incidents in the future. This always seems to be the knee jerk reaction to any crime committed with a gun. Nonsensical proposals to outlaw guns around federal officials and install bulletproof barriers in the congressional gallery only reinforce the growing perception that politicians view their own lives as far more important than the lives of ordinary citizens. Politicians and a complicit media have conditioned many citizens to view government as our protector, leading to more demands for government action whenever tragedies occur. But this impulse is at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individualism, and it also leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty.
Remember - liberty only has meaning if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and more government security is demanded. Government cannot make us safe by mandating security any more than it can make us prosperous by decreeing an end to poverty.
We need to reaffirm the core American value of individual responsibility. Consider the young man who had the courage to tackle the shooter and prevent further carnage because he himself had a concealed weapon. Without that gun, he could have been yet another sitting duck. When peaceful citizens are armed, they at least have a chance against armed criminals.
Advocates of gun control would urge us to leave our safety to law enforcement, but eyewitness reports indicate it took police as much as 20 minutes to arrive on the scene that day! Since police cannot be everywhere all of the time, a large part of our personal safety depends on our ability to defend ourselves.
Our constitutional right to bear arms does not create a society without risks of violent crime, and neither would the strictest gun control laws. Guns and violence are a fact of life. The question is whether it is preferable to be defenseless while waiting for the police, or to have the option to arm yourself. We certainly know criminals prefer the former.
2012 Presidential Campaign Website Statements
RON PAUL’S PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT STANDS
As a congressman, Ron Paul has never once voted for any piece of legislation that would infringe on gun owners’ rights or weaken the Second Amendment.
The inalienable right to keep and bear arms is not only essential to a free society, but it is the guardian of every other right.
During his time in Congress, Ron Paul has worked tirelessly to restore the Second Amendment rights of all Americans by:
* Introducing legislation to repeal the “Brady Bill” and the so-called “Assault Weapons Ban.”
* Authoring legislation to end U.S. membership in the anti-gun United Nations to ensure American tax dollars are not used to fund global gun control schemes like the so-called “Small Arms Treaty.”
* Writing a bill that would allow pilots and specially trained law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers and help prevent future 9/11-style attacks.
With our gun rights under constant attack from our own government and the anti-gun United Nations, as well as the threat of rising crime due to our country’s economic woes, Congressman Paul believes it has never been more important that our President be 100% committed to defending our God-given right to keep and bear arms.
In Congress, Ron Paul has stood as a champion for law-abiding gun owners, and he will continue protecting your Second Amendment rights as President.
Voting Record
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011
In November of 2011, the House passed the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. The legislation was designed to amend the federal criminal code to authorize a person who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state to carry a concealed handgun in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state. It passed the House with the support of almost all Republicans and about 1/4 of the Democrats. Ron Paul cast a "No Vote"
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
In 2005, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The act "Prohibits a qualified civil liability action from being brought in any state or federal court against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm, ammunition, or a component of a firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or against a trade association of such manufacturers or sellers, for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, penalties, or other relief resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm. The act passed the house in October of 2005 in roll call 534 with the support of almost all Republicans and more than 1/3 of the Democrats. Ron Paul voted against the The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Ron Paul voted against the The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
In 2003, Congress attempted to pass similar legislation as in 2005. The bill passed the House in a 285-140 vote. Ron Paul voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Ron Paul voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Amendment - Negligence
As an amendment to the 2003 Lawful commerce act, Congress sought to permit liability actions against firearms manufacturers, sellers, or trade associations for negligence. The amendment failed by a vote of 144-280. Ron Paul voted against the amendment to permit lawsuits for negligence purposes.
Ron Paul voted against the amendment to permit lawsuits for negligence purposes.
Amendment - Third Party
As another amendment to the 2003 Lawful Commerce Act, Congress sought to allow lawsuits to be brought against gun manufacturers and dealers for damages that are caused by the criminal misuse of that product by a third party if the firearm transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the recipient is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance or has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution. The amendment failed by a vote of 134-289. Ron Paul voted against the amendment to allow a lawsuit if the seller should have known the purchaser intended to use the gun illegally.
Ron Paul voted against the amendment to allow a lawsuit if the seller should have known the purchaser intended to use the gun illegally.
Amendment - Conviction of Transferor
As another amendment to the 2003 Lawful commerce act, Congress sought to eliminate the requirement for the conviction of a transferor before a liability action could be taken. The amemdment failed 148-278. Ron Paul voted against eliminating the requirement that the transferor be convicted before a liability action could be taken.
Ron Paul voted against eliminating the requirement that the transferor be convicted before a liability action could be taken.
Gun Show Background Checks
In 1999, the House attempted to pass legislation to close a loophole that allows people to purchase firearms at gun shows without a background check. The Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act failed to pass in the house due to very little support from the Democrats and only moderate support from the Republicans. Ron Paul voted against the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act.
Ron Paul voted against the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act.
Allows, except as provided under federal criminal law relating to the possession of firearms and other dangerous weapons in federal facilities, a person to possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area or national wildlife refuge area in accordance with the laws of the state in which such area is located.
Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to make a video recording of the entire process of its examination and testing of an item for the purpose of determining whether the item is a firearm (and if so, the type of firearm) or ammunition. Bars ATF from editing or erasing any such recording. Directs ATF to make available a digital video disc that contains a copy of the recording: (1) at the request of a person who claims an ownership interest in such item; and (2) to a defendant in a criminal proceeding involving such item. Provides that an item which ATF has determined is a firearm or ammunition shall not be admissible as evidence unless: (1) ATF has complied with the requirements of this Act to make its digital video disc available; or (2) such compliance has been waived in writing by the person against whom the item is offered as evidence.
Allows, except as provided under federal criminal law relating to the possession of firearms and other dangerous weapons in federal facilities, a person to possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area or national wildlife refuge area in accordance with the laws of the state in which such area is located.
Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to make a video recording of the entire process of its examination and testing of an item for the purpose of determining whether the item is a firearm (and if so, the type of firearm) or ammunition. Bars ATF from editing or erasing any such recording. Directs ATF to make available a digital video disc that contains a copy of the recording: (1) at the request of a person who claims an ownership interest in such item; and (2) to a defendant in a criminal proceeding involving such item. Provides that an item which ATF has determined is a firearm or ammunition shall not be admissible as evidence unless: (1) ATF has complied with the requirements of this Act to make its digital video disc available; or (2) such compliance has been waived in writing by the person against whom the item is offered as evidence.
