[House Report 119-338]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 119-338
======================================================================
FIREARM DUE PROCESS PROTECTION ACT OF 2025
_______
October 3, 2025.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Jordan, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2184]
[Including cost estimate of the Congresssional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 2184) to enforce the requirement that the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System make a final
disposition of requests to correct its records within 60 days,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the
bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 3
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 3
Hearings......................................................... 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Committee Votes.................................................. 4
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 5
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 5
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects.......................... 6
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 6
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 6
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 6
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 6
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 7
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 7
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 7
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 7
Additional Views................................................. 8
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Firearm Due Process Protection Act of
2025''.
SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT OF DEADLINE FOR FINAL DISPOSITION OF REQUESTS TO
CORRECT RECORDS OF THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL
BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM; DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS.
Section 925A of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``Any person'';
(2) by inserting ``or aggrieved by a violation of the
penultimate sentence of section 103(g) of the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act'' after ``(s) or (t) of section 922'';
(3) by striking the last sentence; and
(4) by adding after and below the end the following:
``(b) Procedural Rules.--
``(1) Expedited hearing.--The court shall hold a hearing on
an action brought under subsection (a), within 30 days after
the action is brought.
``(2) Burden of proof.--At such a hearing, the respondent
shall bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing
evidence that the individual is ineligible to receive or
possess a firearm.
``(c) Remedies.--
``(1) In general.--The court shall assess against the
respondent reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs
reasonably incurred in an action brought under subsection (a)
in which the complainant has substantially prevailed.
``(2) Substantially prevailed.--For purposes of this section,
a complainant has substantially prevailed if the complainant
has obtained relief through--
``(A) a judicial order;
``(B) an enforceable written agreement or consent
decree; or
``(C) a voluntary or unilateral change in position by
the United States, if the complainant's claim is not
insubstantial.''.
SEC. 3. ANNUAL REPORTS TO THE CONGRESS ON DISPOSITION OF CHALLENGES TO
ACCURACY OF RECORDS OF THE NATIONAL INSTANT
CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.
The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall submit
annually to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a
written report that specifies--
(1) the total number of challenges to the accuracy of the
records of the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (in this section referred to as the ``NICS system'')
established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act that were received by the NICS system during the
year covered by the report;
(2) the total number of the challenges that were processed to
final disposition by the NICS system;
(3) the total number of the challenges with respect to which
the initial determination of the NICS system was reversed, and
with respect to those challenges, the total number in which
each reason for the initial determination was made;
(4) the total number of the challenges with respect to which
the initial determination of the NICS system was not reversed,
and with respect to those challenges, the total number in which
each reason for not doing so was made; and
(5) the average length of time needed to complete the
processing of the challenges referred to in paragraph (2).
SEC. 4. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
It is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a
fundamental component of self-government, self-defense, and the
preservation of individual liberty;
(2) deprivation of the constitutional right to bear arms
requires due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States;
(3) ignoring appeals of determinations made by the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) violates due
process; and
(4) NICS should have the burden of showing a valid reason for
the denial of this constitutional right.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 2184, the Firearm Due Process Protection Act,
introduced by Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN), requires courts to hold a
hearing within 30 days of an individual filing a lawsuit
challenging the accuracy of the individual's records in the
National Instant Background Check System (NICS) due to that
individual being denied his or her right to purchase a firearm
due to the allegedly inaccurate records.
Background and Need for the Legislation
In order for an FFL to lawfully sell a firearm to a
prospective purchaser, the FFL must run a NICS background check
on the prospective purchaser before transferring the
firearm.\1\ This check searches three federal databases for
information that would make the prospective purchaser
ineligible to obtain a firearm under federal law.\2\ If an
individual fails a NICS background check and is determined to
be a prohibited possessor under federal law, the individual may
request the reason for the denial from the Attorney General.\3\
Furthermore, under current law, the prospective purchaser can
send the Attorney General information ``to correct, clarify, or
supplement records'' in the system if he or she believes that
there is an error.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(t).
\2\U.S. Dep't of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, The NICS
Improvement Act of 2007, https://bjs.ojp.gov/programs/nics-improvement-
amendments-act?tid=49&ty=tp (last visited Jun. 12, 2024).
\3\34 U.S.C. Sec. 40901(f).
\4\34 U.S.C. Sec. 40901(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The prospective purchaser can also file an appeal directly
with NICS if he or she believes that he or she was wrongly been
denied the right to receive or possess a firearm.\5\ In 2023,
the latest year for which there is data, 22,615 appeals
challenging a NICS denial were filed with the FBI.\6\ Of the
22,615 appeals received, 6,263 resulted in a denial being
overturned, 12,406 denials were sustained, and 3,946 denials
were unresolved.\7\ After President Trump signed the Fix NICS
Act into law in 2018, the FBI has 60 days to process the appeal
of NICS denial.\8\ Specifically, the Attorney General is
required to determine ``whether or not the prospective
transferee is the subject of an erroneous record and remove
such records that are determined to be erroneous'' within 60
days of receiving information from the prospective
transferee.\9\ However, if the FBI fails to act within 60 days,
there is no enforcement mechanism for the prospective
purchaser. Additionally, federal regulation requires all
appeals-related information to be automatically purged after 90
days, forcing law-abiding Americans to restart the process from
the beginning.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\U.S. Dep't of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Firearm-
Related Challenge (Appeal) and Voluntary Appeal File (VAF), https://
www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/nics/
national-instant-criminal-background-check-system-nics-appeals-vaf
(last visited Mar. 11, 2025).
\6\U.S. Dep't of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Denial Report (Oct. 2,
2024).
\7\Id.
\8\Pub. L. 115-141 (2018); 34 U.S.C. Sec. 40901(g).
\9\Id.
\10\28 C.F.R. Sec. 25.9 (b)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prospective purchasers can bring a lawsuit against the
government or entities responsible for providing the erroneous
information to get a court order requiring the erroneous
information to be corrected or the transfer approved.\11\
However, current law does not provide any sort of preference
for these cases on court dockets--meaning that a person
erroneously denied his or her right to purchase a firearm may
wait months or years. If a prospective transferee files a
lawsuit challenging the accuracy of the records in the NICS
system, the Firearm Due Process Protection Act would require
the courts to hold a hearing within 30 days of the lawsuit
being filed. Furthermore, the government or the entity
responsible for providing the alleged erroneous information
would bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing
evidence that the prospective purchaser is ineligible to
receive or possess a firearm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\18 U.S.C. Sec. 925A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings
For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6)(A) of House rule XIII,
the following hearings were used to develop H. R. 2184: ``The
Right to Self Defense,'' a hearing held on March 4, 2025,
before the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government
Surveillance of the Committee on the Judiciary. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from the following witnesses:
Doug Ritter, Founder and Chair of Knife
Rights, Inc. and Knife Rights Foundation;
Diana Muller, Founder of Women for Gun
Rights;
Dave McDermott, Founding Partner of
McDermott Law Group and USCCA Network Attorney; and
Gregory Jackson, Jr., Former Deputy
Director, White House Office of Gun Violence
Prevention.
The hearing examined the individual's right to self-defense
protected by the Second Amendment and examined the efficacy of
gun control policies and their related effect on public safety.
Committee Consideration
On March 25, 2024, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill, H.R. 2184, favorably reported with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, by voice vote, a
quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the
Committee states that no recorded votes occurred during
consideration of H.R. 2184.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1)
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are
incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to filing of the report
and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is included
in this report.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has
received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2184 from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
H.R. 2184 would amend the authority that allows a person to
bring legal action against the federal government, a state, or
a political subdivision of a state if one of those entities
provides incorrect information to the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS) that results in the denial of a
firearm purchase. Under current law, firearm dealers are
legally required to contact the NICS for background checks
conducted on people purchasing firearms or explosives.
H.R. 2184 would require federal courts to hold hearings
within 30 days of any filing pertaining to a subsection of
legal actions included in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention
Act and require the relevant government entity to bear the
burden of proof for violations preventing a person from owning
a firearm. The bill also would require the relevant government
entity to cover the legal costs for people who win their case;
under current law, the court decides when to award legal fees.
Finally, the bill would require the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) to report annually to the Congress on how
often the NICS receives challenges to the accuracy of its
records.
The bill does not specify a source of funding for the
payment of legal fees, but because the payment of those fees
would be required by law and not explicitly subject to future
appropriation, CBO treats the payments by federal entities as
direct spending. Using information from the FBI, CBO expects
the additional legal fees paid by the federal government would
be very small. On that basis, CBO estimates that the increase
in direct spending under H.R. 2184 would be less than $500,000
over the 2025-2035 period.
Using information from the FBI and based on the costs of
similar reporting requirements, CBO estimates that any
administrative costs for processing additional cases and
reporting to the Congress would be insignificant; any related
spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated
funds.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Zunara Naeem.
The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy
Director of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(d)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision
of H.R. 2184 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal
program.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
House rule XIII, H.R. 2184 would require courts to hold a
hearing within 30 days of an individual filing a lawsuit
challenging the accuracy of the individual's records in the
National Instant Background Check System (NICS) due to that
individual being denied his or her right to purchase a firearm
due to the allegedly inaccurate records.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, H.R. 2184
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clauses
9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of House rule XXI.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Pub. L. 104-
1).
Section-by-Section Analysis
Sec. 1. Short title. The ``Firearm Due Process Protection
Act.''
Sec. 2. Enforcement of deadline for final disposition of
requests to correct records of the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System; due process protections. This section
requires courts to hold a hearing within 30 days of a
prospective transferee filing a lawsuit challenging the
accuracy of the records in the NICS system. The government or
the entity responsible for providing the alleged erroneous
information bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing
evidence that the prospective transferee is ineligible to
receive or possess a firearm. Additionally, in the event that
the prospective transferee substantially prevails in the
lawsuit, the court is required to assess attorney fees and
other litigation costs against the government or the entity
responsible for providing the alleged erroneous information.
Sec. 3. Annual reports to the Congress on disposition of
challenges to accuracy of records of the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System. This section requires the
Attorney General to submit annual reports to the House and
Senate Judiciary Committees concerning information related to
challenges to the accuracy of records in the NICS system.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made
by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART I--CRIMES
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 925A. Remedy for erroneous denial of firearm
(a) In General._Any person denied a firearm pursuant to
subsection (s) or (t) of section 922 or aggrieved by a
violation of the penultimate sentence of section 103(g) of the
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act--
(1) due to the provision of erroneous information
relating to the person by any State or political
subdivision thereof, or by the national instant
criminal background check system established under
section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention
Act; or
(2) who was not prohibited from receipt of a firearm
pursuant to subsection (g) or (n) of section 922,
may bring an action against the State or political subdivision
responsible for providing the erroneous information, or
responsible for denying the transfer, or against the United
States, as the case may be, for an order directing that the
erroneous information be corrected or that the transfer be
approved, as the case may be. [In any action under this
section, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing
party a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs.]
(b) Procedural Rules.--
(1) Expedited hearing.--The court shall hold a
hearing on an action brought under subsection (a),
within 30 days after the action is brought.
(2) Burden of proof.--At such a hearing, the
respondent shall bear the burden of proving by clear
and convincing evidence that the individual is
ineligible to receive or possess a firearm.
(c) Remedies.--
(1) In general.--The court shall assess against the
respondent reasonable attorney fees and other
litigation costs reasonably incurred in an action
brought under subsection (a) in which the complainant
has substantially prevailed.
(2) Substantially prevailed.--For purposes of this
section, a complainant has substantially prevailed if
the complainant has obtained relief through--
(A) a judicial order;
(B) an enforceable written agreement or
consent decree; or
(C) a voluntary or unilateral change in
position by the United States, if the
complainant's claim is not insubstantial.
* * * * * * *
Additional Views
The Firearm Due Process Protection Act is a well-
intentioned bill. No one should be wrongfully denied their
Second Amendment rights due to bureaucratic errors. While this
bill is offered as a solution to delayed appeals of National
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) denials based
on erroneous information, it appears to be a solution in search
of a problem.
Currently, federal law provides any prospective firearm
purchaser who receives a NICS denial the ability to challenge
and correct what they believe is erroneous information.\1\
Pursuant to this law, the Attorney General has 60 days to
determine whether the challenged information is erroneous or
not and to remove any records that are erroneous.\2\ Federal
law also provides that a prospective purchaser may bring an
action in federal court against a state, a political
subdivision of a state, or the United States, if the person is
denied a firearm purchase through NICS due to an erroneous
record.\3\ The court may then order correction of the record or
that the firearms transfer be approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\34 U.S.C. Sec. 40901(g).
\2\Id.
\3\18 U.S.C. Sec. 925A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2184 would amend section 925 of title 18 to create a
procedure for obtaining an expedited hearing within 30 days for
people bringing an action against a state or federal government
for a NICS denial based on erroneous information or who have
sought to correct erroneous information in NICS, and who have
not received a response within 60 days. H.R. 2184 would also
mandate awarding attorneys' fees and litigation costs to a
claimant who substantially prevails.
When we marked up this legislation, I noted that the
Majority had not presented any data to support the existence of
a problem. Specifically, they did not present data on how many
people seek to correct information in NICS and do not get a
response within 60 days. The Minority contacted the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which operates NICS and asked
how many individuals seek to challenge a NICS denial and do not
receive a response within 60 days. The answer was zero. FBI
staff informed the Minority that all NICS challenges receive a
response within 60 calendar days. They informed us that cases
that can be resolved expeditiously and cases that are
insufficient based on the application or documentation
typically get a response within 14 business days and that all
other challenges are processed within 45 calendar days, on
average. They also informed us that there are no backlogs or
delays for customers challenging their firearm-related denial.
As I stated at the markup, the NICS system is not perfect.
According to the 2023 NICS Operations Report, the FBI received
22,615 firearm-related challenges.\4\ Of those challenges,
12,406 were sustained and 6,263 were overturned.\5\ After the
markup, the FBI provided statistics for 2024. In 2024, the FBI
received 23,613 challenges. Of those, 13,021 were sustained,
5,492 were overturned, 1,684 were submitted with an incorrect
or invalid transaction number and the challenger was notified,
415 fall into an ``other'' category, and 3,001 were unresolved.
Unresolved responses are provided when the FBI NICS Section has
cleared the original prohibition but has located additional
potential prohibitions that cannot be resolved after conducting
further research. Notably, in 2024, there were fewer cases
overturned and more cases sustained--both in absolute numbers
and as a percentage of all challenges--as compared to 2023. All
of these challenges received a response within 60 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Section
2023 Operational Report, Fed. Bureau of Inv. (2023), https://
www.fbi.gov/file-repository/cjis/2023-nics-operational-report.pdf/view.
\5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information we received since the markup underscores
that this bill is likely a solution in search of a problem.
Currently, people who challenge NICS denials receive a response
within 60 days.
It is worth noting that the FBI has procedures to prevent
erroneous NICS denials. The form prospective gun buyers fill
out prior to a NICS background check gives them the option to
provide a Social Security Number. As the form notes, this is
purely optional, but it can help prevent misidentification.
Additionally, a person who believes that they have received a
false denial may use the FBI's Voluntary Appeal File process.
When a person applies for the Voluntary Appeal File, FBI staff
will research whether the person is prohibited from obtaining
firearms. If no prohibitions are found, the FBI will issue a
unique personal identification number to prevent delays or
false denials on future gun purchases. Anyone may apply for the
Voluntary Appeal File, but it is specifically designed to
address false denials, including those caused by people with
similar names.
While existing law and FBI initiatives like these prevent
erroneous denials and provide a way to promptly correct errors,
I still believe that no one should be denied constitutional
rights due to bureaucratic errors. Further, the reporting
provisions of this bill might provide us with information that
Congress, the FBI, and other federal agencies could use to
continue to improve the accuracy of NICS so that it operates as
Congress intends it to: allowing people who may lawfully
purchase or otherwise obtain firearms to do so while keeping
firearms out of the hands of those who may not legally have
them. Therefore, I do not oppose this legislation.
Jamie Raskin,
Ranking Member.