[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 140 (Wednesday, October 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S12164]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 FEDERAL FIREARMS DISABILITIES PROVISION OF THE OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS 
                                  BILL

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, upon the passage of the omnibus 
appropriations package, I would like to take a moment to discuss a 
provision that will prohibit the expenditure of funds for the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' [ATF] disability relief program.
  The background behind this simple provision is as follows. Under 
current Federal law, someone who has been convicted of a crime 
punishable by more than 1 year is ineligible, or disabled, from 
possessing a firearm--a sensible idea. However, Congress created a 
loophole in 1965 whereby convicted felons could apply to ATF to have 
their firearm privileges restored, at an estimated taxpayer cost of 
$10,000 per waiver granted.
  We have fought to end this program and have succeeded in stripping 
the program's funding in annual appropriations bills since 1992.
  This year, we faced an additional challenge in our efforts to keep 
guns out of the hands of convicted felons. A recent court case in 
Pennsylvania misinterpreted our intentions and opened the door for 
these convicted felons to apply for judicial review of their disability 
relief applications.
  In this case, Rice versus United States, the Third Circuit Court of 
Appeals found that the current funding prohibition does not make clear 
congressional intent to bar all avenues of relief for convicted felons. 
By their reasoning, since ATF is unable to consider applications for 
relief, felons are entitled to ask the courts to review their 
applications.
  This misguided decision could flood the courts with felons seeking 
the restoration of their gun rights, effectively shifting from ATF to 
the courts the burden of considering these applications. Instead of 
wasting taxpayer money and the time of ATF agents, which could be much 
better spent on important law enforcement efforts, such as the 
investigation of church arsons, we would now be wasting court resources 
and distracting the courts from consideration of serious criminal 
cases.
  Fortunately, another decision by the fifth circuit in U.S. versus 
McGill found that congressional intent to prohibit any Federal relief--
either through ATF or the courts--is clear. The fifth circuit concluded 
that convicted felons are therefore not eligible for judicial review of 
their relief applications.
  Given this conflict in the circuit courts, it is important that we 
once again clarify our original and sustaining intention. The goal of 
this provision has always been to prohibit convicted felons from 
getting their guns back--whether through ATF or the courts. It was 
never our intention to shift the burden to the courts.
  Congressman Durbin and his colleagues succeeded in their efforts to 
include language in the House appropriations bill to make clear that 
convicted felons may not use the courts in their efforts to get their 
guns back. I applaud the House committee for its wise vote on this 
issue.
  During the same markup, Congressman Durbin's efforts were undermined 
by a related exemption offered by Congressman Obey. This exemption 
would have allowed those individuals convicted of nonviolent felonies 
the ability to appeal for judicial review of their relief application.
  According to Congressman Obey's amendment, the opportunity to appeal 
to the courts would have been closed to those felons convicted of 
violent crimes, firearms violations, or drug-related crimes. All other 
felons would have been allowed to apply to the courts for review of 
their relief applications.
  Mr. Obey's exemption was clearly inconsistent with the original 
intent of this provision for three simple reasons:

  First, one need only consider people like Al Capone and countless 
other violent criminals who were convicted of lesser, nonviolent 
felonies, to understand how dangerous this Capone amendment will be to 
public safety. Our intent when we first passed this provision--and 
every year thereafter--has been to prohibit anyone who was convicted of 
a crime punishable by more than 1 year from restoring their gun 
privileges via the ATF procedure or a judicial review.

  Second, as Dewey Stokes, the former president of the Fraternal Order 
of Police noted, most criminals do not commit murder as their first 
crime. Rather, most criminals start by committing nonviolent crimes 
which escalate into violent crimes. An ATF analysis shows that between 
1985 and 1992, 69 nonviolent felons were granted firearms relief and 
subsequently re-arrested for violent crimes such as attempted murder, 
first degree sexual assault, child molestation, kidnaping/abduction, 
and drug trafficking.
  Third, there is no reason in the world for the taxpayers' money and 
court resources to be wasted by allowing the review of any convicted 
felons' application to get their guns back. It made no sense for ATF to 
take agents away from their important law enforcement work, and it 
makes even less sense for the courts, which have no experience or 
expertise in this area, to be burdened with this unnecessary job. Let 
me make this point perfectly clear: It was never our intent, nor is it 
now, for the courts to review a convicted felon's application for 
firearm privilege restoration.
  I am pleased that the conference committee understood our original 
intention and did not allow the Obey provision to stand. As it stands, 
the omnibus appropriations law is consistent with our lasting desire to 
stop arming felons.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator for clearly laying out the facts. 
As the coauthor of this provision, I share his interest and concern 
about this issue. I am also pleased that the conference committee 
understood our intent regarding the Federal firearms relief program. I 
agree with his analysis completely and intend to closely follow this 
situation in the coming year to see if any further legislation is 
necessary to clarify our intent. I would also like to take this 
opportunity to let my colleague know how much I enjoyed working on this 
issue with him as well as so many other matters. I want to thank him 
for his commitment to this issue, and for the excellent work of Susan 
Kaplan and Amy Isbell of his staff, and I want to ensure him that 
although he will not be here next year to continue his work in the 
Senate on this matter, I fully intend to carry on the fight for us 
both.

                          ____________________