[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 22, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1598-S1601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Smith of New 
        Hampshire):
  S. 2270. A bill to prohibit civil or equitable actions from being 
brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or 
importers of firearms or ammunition for damages resulting from the 
misuse of their products by others, to protect gun owner privacy and 
ownership rights, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.


       The right to bear arms protection and privacy act of 2000

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a very significant 
bill--the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Protection and Privacy Act.
  There is a gun control frenzy taking place in Washington. There are 
about 1,070 bills either regulating or dealing with firearms pending in 
the House and Senate. These range from imposing new Federal regulatory 
standards on the manufacture of firearms to those requiring background 
checks at gun shows. And President Clinton has written a letter 
informing me that he will not sign long overdue, worthwhile and 
comprehensive youth violence legislation unless it includes most of 
this gun control agenda.
  I have become convinced that, for conscientious and reasonable 
defenders of the Second Amendment, it is not enough to simply oppose 
the gun control communities legislative agenda. Instead, we just 
redouble our efforts and set out to pass an affirmative legislative 
agenda which safeguards the right to keep and bear arms.
  Many gun control advocates claim that it is not their goal to 
interfere with the rights of law abiding gun owners. Many question 
sincerity. The bill I am introducing today will afford gun control 
advocates the opportunity to prove their critics wrong. This important 
bill is a first step in what I hope will become a bipartisan campaign 
to safeguard the rights of law abiding gun owners.
  Simply put, this plainly written bill would end burdensome and 
frivolous suits against law abiding firearm manufacturers, dealers, and 
owners, and preclude new ones, except in those cases where plaintiffs 
could show that the manufacturer or seller knew that the firearm would 
be used to commit a Federal or State crime. Thus, if it can be shown 
that manufacturers and sellers knew that a specific product would be 
used to a commit crime, then they will be subject to a civil action, if 
not a criminal prosecution. The provision also has the beneficial 
effect of striking a blow against ``legislation through litigation,'' 
which has enriched the trial lawyers while harming many of our nation's 
law abiding citizens and businesses.
  In addition, the bill also addresses the concerns of gun owners and 
advocates of the Second Amendment that the federal regulatory process 
will be misused by the government to abridge the constitutional right 
to keep and bear arms. The bill thus contains the following provisions: 
(1) a prohibition against the government charging a background check 
fee in connection with the transfer of a firearm; (2) a gun owner 
privacy protection component which requires immediate destruction of 
background check records for approved firearms buyers; and (3) 
establishes a civil remedy for private citizens aggrieved by government 
violations of the background check fee or gun owner privacy provisions. 
After all, if firearms manufacturers should be subjected to civil 
liability for illegal acts, why shouldn't the government be liable if a 
law abiding gun owner's privacy protections are violated?

  As a Senior proudly representing the people of Utah, I take seriously 
our oath of office to defend our Union's defining document--the 
Constitution of the United States. I truly concur with the remarks of 
the great British Prime Minister William Gladstone when he wrote in 
1878 that the ``American Constitution is * * * the most wonderful work 
ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.''
  So too, I am an avid supporter of the Second Amendment. I believe, 
following the teachings of virtually all the Founders of our Republic, 
that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been 
considered as, in the words of the learned Justice Joseph Story, ``the 
palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong 
moral check against the usurpation

[[Page S1599]]

and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are 
successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and 
triumph over them.''
  It is astonishing to me that despite this pedigree of the Second 
Amendment, the enemies of the right to keep and bear arms, those 
advocates of state-ism and the politics of the left, have stooped to 
new lows in their crusade to diminish the God-given liberties of the 
American people. Seeing that radical gun control measures are unpopular 
and cannot pass Congress and state legislatures, those hostile to the 
Second Amendment have resorted to a new tactic in a not-so-veiled 
attempt to undermine the right to keep and bear arms.
  They have resorted to misusing our civil litigation system by 
bringing law suits against the source of guns: firearms manufacturers. 
They seek damages from firearms manufacturers for any harm caused by 
gun wielding criminals, even though the manufacturers are not 
responsible for the crimes. This violates traditional precepts of 
American law, which is based upon the free-will notion that only those 
responsible should be held liable.
  More specifically, over the past few years the firearms manufacturing 
industry has been subjected to these numerous ``junk'' lawsuits seeking 
damages or injunctive relief for harm caused by third-party criminal 
actors. Many of these cases have been brought by local government 
entities, including approximately thirty American cities. The Clinton 
Administration had announced that it would support these lawsuits and 
publicly threatened that the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development would commence an action against the firearms 
manufacturers.
  Generally, the plaintiffs in these cases argue that although the 
firearms are legal products and despite the criminal actions of third 
parties, manufacturers and sellers should be held liable because of the 
negligent fashion in which they designed, marketed, and sold their 
products. This novel theory stands traditional tort law on its head.
  These radical lawsuits are onerous and may well bankrupt many 
firearms manufacturers. If a maverick judge were to rule in favor of 
the plaintiffs in one of these cases, the industry could face financial 
ruin. Indeed, the Louisiana state judge handling the City of New 
Orleans lawsuit recently refused to dismiss that lawsuit 
notwithstanding the enactment of a state law that nullified the cause 
of action. The net result may very well be the disappearance of a 
lawful product--firearms--from interstate commerce.

  Let me mention a junk lawsuit brought by the City of Chicago against 
12 suburban gun shops, 22 gun manufacturers, and four gun distributors. 
The Chicago Tribune, in an editorial dated November 14, 1998, agreed 
that the mayor's anger at the misuse of handguns was understandable, 
but called his lawsuit ``wrongheaded and ill-advised'' because ``it 
represents an abuse of the tort liability system and a dangerous 
extension of the tactic employed in similar lawsuits against the 
tobacco industry of using potentially bankrupting lawsuits to force 
makers of legal but unpopular products to quit.''
  To one federal district court, such lawsuits are ``an obvious attempt 
unwise and unwarranted to ban or restrict handguns through courts and 
juries, despite the repeated refusals of state legislatures and 
Congress to pass strong, comprehensive gun-control measures.'' 
[Patterson v. Rohm Gessellschaft, 608 F. Supp. 1206, 1211 (N.D. Tex. 
1985)].
  Indeed, in characterizing the federal lawsuit against the tobacco 
producers and the HUD suit threatened against the firearms industries, 
and in complete candor, former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich 
noted that:

       * * * the biggest problem is that these lawsuits are end 
     runs around the democratic process. We used to be a nation of 
     laws, but this new strategy presents novel means of 
     legislating--within settlement negotiations of large civil 
     suits initiated by the executive branch. This is faux 
     legislation that sacrifices democracy to the discretion of 
     administrative officials operating in secrecy.

[Robert Reich, ``Don't Democrats Believe in Democracy,'' The Wall 
Street Journal, Wednesday, January 12, 2000].
  Furthermore, these junk lawsuits seek to reverse the well-established 
tort law principle that manufacturers are not responsible for the 
criminal misuse of their products. For instance, the Seventh Circuit 
Court of Appeals in Martin v. Harrington and Richardson, Inc., [743 F. 
2d 1200, 1205 (7th Cir. 1984)], held that criminal misuse of a handgun 
breaks the causal connection between the manufacturers action and the 
injury ``because such criminal activity is not reasonably forseeable.''
  A judge from a federal district court noted that ``under all ordinary 
and normal circumstances in the absence of any reason to expect the 
contrary, the actor may reasonably proceed with the assumption that 
others will obey the criminal law.'' [Bennett v. The Cincinnati Checker 
Cab, 353 F.Supp. 1206, 1209 (E.D. Kent, 1973)]. It is important to note 
that in his opinion the judge cited the noted tort expert, the late 
Professor Prosser, for the proposition that entities are not liable for 
criminal acts of others because such acts are generally unforeseeable 
and thereby cut the chain of proximate causation. [Prosser, Torts, 3d 
ed. at 176].

  Moreover, these lawsuits suffer from the same defect that some, if 
not all, of the courts in the federal tobacco lawsuit suffer from: lack 
of standing. Government entities, absent specific statutory authority--
which is not present in either the federal tobacco case or these gun 
manufacturers cases--may not recoup medical and other expenses paid by 
government agencies from manufacturers of products alleged to cause the 
harm to ``third party'' beneficiaries of government programs. For 
instance let me mention two cases. Holmes v. Securities Investor 
Protection Corp., [503 U.S. 258, 268-69 (1992)] and Laborers Local 17 
Health Benefit Fund v. Phillip Morris, [191 F. 3d 229 (2nd Cir. 1999)]. 
These cases stand for the proposition that a complaint is too 
``remote'' when a plaintiff seeks to recover damage to a third party. 
Therefore, the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the suit.
  This is exactly what Connecticut Superior Court Judge Robert McWeeny 
held when he recently dismissed the City of Bridgport's ``junk 
lawsuit'' complaint for recoupment against Smith & Wesson. [Ganim v. 
Smith & Wesson, [No. CV 990253198S (Superior Ct. Conn., Dec. 10, 
1999)]].
  Our judiciary is being transformed by these misguided advocates of 
gun control from courts of justice into tribunals of the gun control 
lobby. That is why this legislation is needed. The Congress has both a 
duty to protect federal constitutional rights such as the right to keep 
and bear arms, as well as to step in and reform our tort system when it 
is being abused and the abuse has a significant impact on interstate 
commerce.
  Let me say a few words about last Friday's announcement of the 
agreement between Smith & Wesson and HUD. Basically, the agreement 
mandates that Smith & Wesson would provide trigger locks within 60 days 
and make their handguns child resistant within a year. Smith & Wesson 
also agreed to a ``code of conduct'' whereby the manufacturer would 
sell its products only to ``authorized dealers and distributors'' who 
agree to have their contract terminated if ``a disproportionate 
number'' of crimes were traced to the firearms they sell. Some sort of 
outside board will police the settlement. In return, the federal 
government agreed not to bring suit against the firearms manufacturer 
and eleven of the thirty cities and local governments dropped their 
actions.
  I believe that this so-called ``deal'' is the latest attempt by the 
Administration to play on the fear of the American people for pure 
political advantage. It makes the Administration look good. It makes it 
seem that the Administration is doing ``something'' about gun violence. 
But the record makes clear that the Administration has done little to 
enforce the federal laws on the books against gun wielding criminals. 
So this settlement masks the truth. The Administration has been inept 
in preventing gun violence.

  Let me say, first of all, that I don't believe that the 
Administration ever really intended to see its lawsuit against the 
firearms manufacturers to verdict. Indeed, in announcing the projected 
lawsuit against the gun manufacturers, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo 
admitted to the press that the whole effort was simply a bargaining 
ploy.
  So let's call it what the federal lawsuit really is: extortion. It is 
an attempt to bypass the legislative process

[[Page S1600]]

and the Constitution to achieve a gun control agenda that the public's 
elected officials oppose. Sue the industry and have them cave in or 
face imminent financial ruin by having to defend an avalanche of 
legally dubious lawsuits and bad publicity. That's their game plan.
  Well, Smith & Wesson caved in. Why? Published reports have it that 
the owner of Smith & Wesson, Tompkins PLC of Great Britain, could not 
find a buyer for the $161 million company with lawsuits hanging over 
its head. And Tompkins understands that three California gun companies 
have gone out of business and that legal fees may very well bankrupt 
the industry. So Tompkins surrendered.
  And the reward for their surrender: it was announced on Saturday that 
HUD and the mayors of Atlanta, Detroit and Miami directed their law 
enforcement agencies to give preferences to Smith & Wesson when 
purchasing firearms. [``Smith & Wesson Earns Preference,'' @ Home 
Network, AP, March 18, 2000] This is outrageous. Not only does this 
deal undercut the Second Amendment, it undercuts the principle of 
competitive bidding. It creates an incentive that tax payers will be 
gouged. It punishes innocent firearms manufacturers. It weakens the 
rule of law because innocent manufacturers are denied their day in 
court. It weakens democracy because the heavy hand of big government is 
used as a tool of despotism.
  But it is the ``code of conduct'' term of the settlement that is the 
most peculiar. Again, this provision mandates that Smith & Wesson sell 
its products only to ``authorized dealers and distributors'' who agree 
to have their contracts terminated if ``a disproportionate number'' of 
crimes are traced to the firearms they sell. Well, how is this to be 
determined? What is a disproportionate number of crimes? And how will 
this be traced to the dealer or distributor? And what if the dealer or 
distributor were innocent of any wrongdoing?
  It seems to me that this settlement term suffers from the same defect 
as the underlying ``junk lawsuits''--innocent parties are being held 
liable for the criminal acts of third parties.

  The settlement represents the misuse of governmental power. It 
represents a weakening of our democracy and the rule of law.
  Mr. President, let me turn to the provisions of the bill that will 
(1) prevent illicit fees to be charged for background checks, and (2) 
that protect the privacy of gun owners from federal intrusion.
  The Brady Handgun Control Act of 1993 is silent on whether the 
government may charge a fee for the instant background check required 
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(t). And let me add that it was never 
contemplated that the government would charge such a fee when Brady was 
debated and passed.
  Nonetheless, despite no explicit legal authority, the Administration 
has repeatedly attempted to require the payment of such a fee by 
licensed firearms dealers--which fees would almost surely be passed 
along to purchasers through higher prices. This would truly amount to 
``taxation without representation.''
  Section 5 of our bill adds Section 540C to Title 28. This new section 
prohibits the Administration from promulgating a tax without Congress' 
approval. It codifies a prohibition on charging or collecting ``any fee 
in connection with any background check required in connection with the 
transfer of a firearm.'' The prohibition would apply both to the 
Federal government and ``State or local officers or employees acting on 
behalf of the United States.''
  This section thus prohibits an unauthorized fee that may be 
considered to be a ``tax'' on the exercise of a constitutional right--
in this case, to buy a firearm.
  Finally, under the Brady bill, if the instant background check 
reveals that the buyer is eligible to purchase the firearm, the 
government is required to ``destroy all records of the system with 
respect to the call and all records of the system relating to the 
person or the transfer.'' [18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(t)(2)(C)]. The Brady bill 
also prohibits the government from using the instant check system to 
establish a registry of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms 
transfers, except with respect to persons prohibited from receiving a 
firearm. [Pub. L. 103-159, Sec. 103(i)].
  Despite the law, the Administration promulgated regulations in 1998 
that allowed the FBI to retain for 6 months information pertinent to an 
approved firearms sale gathered as part of the instant check system. 
[See C.F.R. Sec. 25.9(b)(1)].

  But, I concur with those Second Amendment advocates who view these 
record retention periods as veiled attempts by the government to 
establish a national firearms registry. Furthermore, the only way to 
ensure the privacy and security of the information in the instant check 
system is to immediately destroy the records of approved firearms 
transfers.
  To address these concerns and preempt the Administration's efforts to 
undermine the Brady bill's ban on a national firearms registry, my bill 
would establish a new statute, Section 931 to title 18, that would 
prohibit the use of the instant check system unless the system 
``require[s] and result[s] in the immediate destruction of all 
information, in any form whatsoever or through any medium,'' about any 
person determined not to be prohibited from receiving a firearm.
  The destruction requirement, however, would not apply to (1) ``any 
unique identification number provided by the [instant check] system,'' 
or (2) ``the date on which that number is provided.'' These exceptions 
parallel the exceptions contained in the Brady bill [see 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 922(t)(2)(C)] and allow the government to trace a firearm to a 
dealer, but not to a purchaser.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation to prevent extortion against the manufacturers of a lawful 
product, firearms. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to 
prohibit a tax on the exercise of constitutional right--the Second 
Amendment's guarantee of the right of the American citizen to keep and 
bear arms. And I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that 
protects the privacy of citizens who lawfully and peaceably possess 
firearms from federal intrusion.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2270

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Right to Bear Arms 
     Protection and Privacy Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Citizens have a right, under the Second Amendment to 
     the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms.
       (2) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, 
     distributors, dealers, and importers of nondefective 
     firearms, which seek money damages and other relief for the 
     harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, 
     including criminals.
       (3) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use 
     of firearms and ammunition in the United States is heavily 
     regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal 
     laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National 
     Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.
       (4) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in 
     interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, 
     marketing, distribution, manufacture, importation, or sale to 
     the public of firearms or ammunition that have been shipped 
     or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and 
     should not be, liable or otherwise legally responsible for 
     the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse 
     firearm products or ammunition products.
       (5) The possibility of imposing liability or other legal 
     restrictions on an entire industry as a result of harm that 
     is the sole responsibility of others is an abuse of the legal 
     system, erodes public confidence our Nation's laws, threatens 
     the diminution of a basic constitutional right, invites the 
     disassembly and destabilization of other industries and 
     economic sectors lawfully competing in America's free 
     enterprise system, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on 
     interstate and foreign commerce.
       (6) The liability and equitable actions commenced or 
     contemplated by municipalities, cities, and other entities 
     are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years 
     of the common law and American jurisprudence. The possible 
     sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer 
     would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated 
     by the Framers of the Constitution. The Congress further 
     finds that such an expansion of liability would constitute a 
     deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities 
     guaranteed to a citizen of the United

[[Page S1601]]

     States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States 
     Constitution.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To prohibit causes of action against law-abiding 
     manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of 
     firearms or ammunition products for the harm caused by the 
     criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition 
     products by others.
       (2) To preserve a citizen's constitutional access to a 
     supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, 
     including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive 
     or recreational shooting.
       (3) To protect a citizen's right to privacy concerning the 
     lawful purchase and ownership of firearms.
       (4) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and 
     immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth 
     Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 
     section five of that Amendment.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON BRINGING OF QUALIFIED CIVIL ACTIONS IN 
                   FEDERAL OR STATE COURT.

       (a) In General.--A qualified civil action may not be 
     brought in any Federal or State court.
       (b) Dismissal of Pending Actions.--A qualified civil action 
     that is pending on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     shall be dismissed immediately by the court in which the 
     action was brought.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Manufacturer.--The term ``manufacturer'' means, with 
     respect to a qualified product--
       (A) a person who is lawfully engaged in a business to 
     import, make, produce, create, or assemble a qualified 
     product, and who designs or formulates, or has engaged 
     another person to design or formulate, a qualified product;
       (B) a lawful seller of a qualified product, but only with 
     respect to an aspect of the product that is made or affected 
     when the seller makes, produces, creates, or assembles and 
     designs or formulates an aspect of the product made by 
     another person; and
       (C) any lawful seller of a qualified product who represents 
     to a user of a qualified product that the seller is a 
     manufacturer of the qualified product.
       (2) Person.--The term ``person'' means any individual, 
     corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, 
     society, joint stock company, or any other entity, including 
     any governmental entity.
       (3) Qualified product.--The term ``qualified product'' 
     means a firearm (as defined in section 921(a)(3) of title 18, 
     United States Code) or ammunition (as defined in section 
     921(a)(17) of such title), or a component part of a firearm 
     or ammunition, that has been shipped or transported in 
     interstate or foreign commerce.
       (4) Qualified civil action.--The term ``qualified civil 
     action'' means a civil or equitable action brought by any 
     person against a lawful manufacturer or lawful seller of a 
     qualified product, or a trade association, for damages or 
     other relief as a result of the criminal or unlawful misuse 
     of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but 
     shall not include an action brought against a manufacturer, 
     seller, or transferor who knowingly manufactures, sells, or 
     transfers a qualified product with knowledge that such 
     product will be used to commit a crime under Federal or State 
     law.
       (5) Seller.--The term ``seller'' means, with respect to a 
     qualified product, a person who--
       (A) in the course of a lawful business conducted for that 
     purpose, lawfully sells, distributes, rents, leases, 
     prepares, blends, packages, labels, or otherwise is involved 
     in placing a qualified product in the stream of commerce; or
       (B) lawfully installs, repairs, refurbishes, reconditions, 
     or maintains an aspect of a qualified product that is alleged 
     to have resulted in damages.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' includes each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United 
     States, and any political subdivision of any such place.
       (7) Trade association.--The term ``trade association'' 
     means any association or business organization (whether or 
     not incorporated under Federal or State law) 2 or more 
     members of which are manufacturers or sellers of a qualified 
     product.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION OF BACKGROUND CHECK FEE; GUN OWNER 
                   PRIVACY.

       (a) Prohibition of Background Check Fee.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 33 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 540C. Prohibition of fee for background check in 
       connection with firearm transfer

       ``No officer, employee, or agent of the United States, 
     including a State or local officer or employee acting on 
     behalf of the United States, may charge or collect any fee in 
     connection with any background check required in connection 
     with the transfer of a firearm (as defined in section 921(a) 
     of title 18).''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 33 of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 540B the following:

``540C. Prohibition of fee for background check in connection with 
              firearm transfer.''.

       (b) Protection of Gun Owner Privacy and Ownership Rights.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 931. Gun owner privacy and ownership rights

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no department, agency, or instrumentality of the United 
     States or officer, employee, or agent of the United States, 
     including a State or local officer or employee acting on 
     behalf of the United States--
       ``(1) shall perform any criminal background check through 
     the National Instant Criminal Background Check System 
     (referred to in this section as the `system') on any person 
     if the system does not require and result in the immediate 
     destruction of all information, in any form whatsoever or 
     through any medium, about any such person that is determined, 
     through the use of the system, not to be prohibited by 
     subsection (g) or (n) of section 922, or by State law, from 
     receiving a firearm; or
       ``(2) shall continue to operate the system (including 
     requiring a background check before the transfer of a 
     firearm) unless--
       ``(A) the NICS Index complies with the requirements of 
     section 552a(e)(5) of title 5, United States Code; and
       ``(B) the agency responsible for the system and the 
     system's compliance with Federal law does not invoke the 
     exceptions under subsection (j)(2) or paragraph (2) or (3) of 
     subsection (k) of section 552a of title 5, United States 
     Code, except if specifically identifiable information is 
     compiled for a particular law enforcement investigation or 
     specific criminal enforcement matter.
       ``(b) Applicability.--Subsection (a)(1) does not apply to 
     the retention or transfer of information relating to--
       ``(1) any unique identification number provided by the 
     National Instant Criminal Background Check System under 
     section 922(t)(1)(B)(i); or
       ``(2) the date on which that number is provided.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The analysis for chapter 44 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``931. Gun owner privacy and ownership rights.''.

       (c) Civil Remedies.--Any person aggrieved by a violation of 
     section 540C of title 28 or 931 of title 18, United States 
     Code (as added by this section), may bring an action in the 
     United States district court for the district in which the 
     person resides for actual damages, punitive damages, and such 
     other relief as the court determines to be appropriate, 
     including a reasonable attorney's fee.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     take effect on the date of enactment of this Act except that 
     the amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect as of 
     November 30, 1998.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise along with Senator 
Hatch to support the Right to Bear Arms Protection and Privacy Act of 
2000.
  This bill embodies the goals of several bills I have previously 
introduced, and its passage would be a great relief for millions of law 
abiding gun owners who want their rights protected.
  Mr. President, this administration has launched an all-out assault on 
gun owners and gunmakers in an attempt to blame them for the crime 
problem that has resulted from the revolving-door criminal justice 
approach taken by liberal judges throughout this country.
  I look forward to working with Chairman Hatch to move this bill 
expeditiously through the Judiciary Committee.
                                 ______