Month: February 2011

Uncategorized

Blood Drenched Organization?

February 13, 2011 by 4 Comments

Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC’s “The Last Word” describes the NRA as a blood drenched organization in his “rewrite” of Wayne LaPierre’s CPAC speech. He goes on to say that “the merchants of death” aka firearms manufacturers pay Wayne’s salary. And here I thought it was my dues as a NRA member that paid them.

If Lawrence O’Donnell is considered by MSNBC to be the man to replace Keith Olbermann, it is obvious that he was chosen because of his gift for hyperbole and snide nastiness. Weren’t progressives bemoaning “hate-filled” political rhetoric only a few weeks ago? Mr. O’Donnell must not have gotten the memo.

Uncategorized

Tester To Introduce Collectible Firearms Protection Act

February 12, 2011 by

The problem of importing those Korean Garands and M-1 carbines could be resolved if a bill that will be introduced by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) is passed. The bipartisan bill already has six co-sponsors.

Below is the text of the bill that Sen. Tester plans to introduce to the Senate:

112TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S. l

To amend the Arms Export Control Act to provide that certain firearms
listed as curios or relics may be imported into the United States by
a licensed importer without obtaining authorization from the Department
of State or the Department of Defense, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. WICKER, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ENZI,
Mr. BEGICH, and Ms. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill

A BILL

To amend the Arms Export Control Act to provide that certain firearms listed as curios or relics may be imported into the United States by a licensed importer without obtaining authorization from the Department of State or the Department of Defense, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Collectible Firearms Protection Act’’.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 38(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(1)) is amended—

(1) by redesignating the first subparagraph (B)(as added by section 8142(a) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1988 (as enacted into law by Public Law 100–202; 101 Stat. 1329–88)) as subparagraph (C);

(2) in subparagraph (C) (as redesignated byparagraph (1) of this subsection)—
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ‘‘subparagraph (A)’’ and inserting‘‘subparagraph (A)(i)’’;
(B) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘Secretary of the Treasury’’ and inserting ‘‘Attorney General’’; and
(C) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the
following:
‘‘(ii) the person seeking to export such firearms
to the United States certifies to the Attorney General that the firearms are lawfully possessed under the laws of the exporting country.’’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or executive order, any such firearms described in subparagraph (C) may be imported into the United
States by an importer licensed under the provisions of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, without the importer or the person described in subparagraph
(C)(ii)—
‘‘(i) obtaining authorization from the Department of State or the Department of Defense for the transfer of such firearms by the person to the importer; or
‘‘(ii) providing payment to the Department of State or the Department of Defense of any of the proceeds of the transfer of such firearms by the person to the importer.’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to the importation of firearms described in section 38(b)(1)(C) of the Arms Export Control Act (as amended by subsection (a) of this section) on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Uncategorized

NRA On Project “Gunwalker”

February 12, 2011 by

The NRA-ILA released this yesterday regarding Project “Gunwalker”:

Senator Grassley Presses BATFE On Project Gunrunner

Friday, February 11, 2011

Pointing to documentation that guns used by Mexican nationals in a shootout with Border Patrol agents were allowed to be sold under suspicious circumstances with the knowledge of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) is calling on the agency to fully respond to his inquiries into the case. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in that encounter on Dec. 14 of last year.

Grassley has called the response of BATFE to his original letter on inquiry “little more than delay and denial.”

Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich responded to Grassley on Feb. 4 denying the allegations.

Senator Grassley on Feb. 9 wrote Attorney General Eric Holder to again request that BATFE cooperate with his investigation, writing “the Terry family deserves answers.”

Grassley stated in the letter that he has documentation for his allegations. “The whistleblowers have expressed a desire to honor agent Terry’s memory by disclosing this information. The Justice Department should work to do the same. The best way to honor his memory is to come clean.”

Senator Grassley has demonstrated that he is determined to uncover the truth regarding BATFE’s investigative tactics, even as BATFE seems intent on shutting down his investigation. BATFE has accused Grassley of conducting a “partisan” investigation and has even gone so far as to ask that Senate Judiciary Committee staff stop talking to law enforcement personnel.

Since Agent Terry’s killing, BATFE has denied the allegations regarding its investigations while at the same time claiming that a shortage of manpower and resources prevents the agency from accounting for all the firearms it is tracking.

The obvious question is: Did BATFE have no involvement with the firearms involved in the shootout, or did it lack the manpower to do its job effectively?

Either way, the BATFE’s desire to mandate reporting of multiple long gun sales by border area firearms dealers is questionable since BATFE seems incapable of managing the criminal leads it already has and unwilling to submit to constitutionally mandated Congressional oversight.

While this statement is not as strong as that of Gun Owners of America or the Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, it is significant nonetheless because it puts the heft of the NRA behind Sen. Chuck Grassley as he pushes DOJ and BATFE for answers. It never hurts to have the 800 pound gorilla on your side.

Uncategorized

HR 645 – A Bipartisan Bill To Bring The 2nd Amendment To DC

February 12, 2011 by 6 Comments

Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR) along with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) introduced a bill in the House of Representatives on Thursday that would “restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia. The text of the bill, HR 645, has not be released yet by the Government Printing Office. The bill has been sent to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for hearings.

According to a press release on the bill issued by Ross’s office, HR 645 would:

The major provisions of the Second Amendment Enforcement Act include:

Repeal the D.C. Semiautomatic Ban. The District has restricted or banned the availability of various types of semiautomatic firearms that are widely owned throughout the United States. This repeal would allow District residents to choose for themselves the best firearms to meet their needs. The District’s current ban on fully-automatic machine guns would remain in place.

Restore the Right to Self Defense in the Home. The bill would repeal the District’s current storage law and allow gun owners to store their firearms so that they are readily available for immediate defensive purposes. It would also provide for criminal penalties when a person allows an unattended firearm to fall into the hands of minors who harm themselves or others.

Authorize Purchases of Firearms and Ammunition by D.C. Residents. Because there are not traditional gun shops in D.C. and federal law prohibits a person from purchasing handguns outside the person’s state of residence, this bill would provide more meaningful opportunities for D.C. residents to obtain the right firearms for their needs in Maryland and Virginia. It would also allow licensed dealers in D.C. to sell non-restricted ammunition.

Repeal Overly Restrictive Registration Requirement. Buying a firearm in D.C. can often take weeks and the registration fees can often cost as much as the gun itself. This bill would repeal the burdensome and very costly registration requirement and allows D.C. residents to exercise their right to bear arms without undue hindrance.

Ensure the Firearms May be Transported and Carried for Legitimate Purposes. This bill would allow a person to transport and carry firearms in prescribed manners for lawful purposes, while authorizing the D.C. City Council to implement regulations governing licensed carry and the prohibition of firearms in sensitive public places.

Ross represents the 4th District of Arkansas. He is one of the few Blue Dog Democrats to be re-elected in 2010 and is co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus. He notes in his press release that he is a Life Member of the NRA. Both he and Jordan signed the amicus brief submitted by Members of Congress supporting Heller in D.C. v Heller.

Jordan represents the 4th District of Ohio. He is Chairman of the Republican Study Committee for the 112th Congress which is the caucus of Republican conservatives. Jordan serves onthe House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where he serves as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government Spending.

Ross and Jordan were rated A+ for the 2010 election cycle by the NRA Political Victory Fund and both received the NRA endorsement.

UPDATE: The Washington Post reports on the bill introduced by Ross and Jordan. They think that some sort of bill will pass that will reduce the constraints imposed by the DC City Council. However, they are unsure whether a standalone bill will get through Congress and Obama.

House Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) is positively apoplectic in her response to this bill. From a release that her office issue:

“House Republicans revealed themselves to be hypocrites on day one of the new Congress when they stripped our residents of the federal court-approved Committee of the Whole vote,” Norton said. “They won control of the House on the slogans of job creation and reducing the power of the federal government, but they have spent the first month in the majority introducing bills to usurp the local autonomy of the District of Columbia. They underestimate our residents if they think this city will tolerate autocratic rule from Congress any more than the Jordan and Ross districts would tolerate dictatorship from Congress on local matters.”

UPDATE II: The full text of HR 645 is now available. It is a long bill so here is the link to the PDF of the bill.

Uncategorized

Who Is John Galt?

February 12, 2011 by 4 Comments

Myths about this movie.


To help dispel some common myths floating around about the new Atlas Shrugged movie:

* It will not star Angelina Jole. She was in serious discussions at one point a few years ago, but those plans fell through. Nor will it star Brad Pitt, who was also rumored to be interested. The movie stars Taylor Schilling (as Dagny Taggart) and Grant Bowler (as Hank Rearden).
* It will be neither a feature film nor a mini-series. There was some talk of a mini-series many years ago, but none of the networks signed on for it. The current production is instead a trilogy, corresponding to the three parts of the Atlas Shrugged novel. And it will be released in movie theaters, rather than direct to television.
* The budget is not $5 million. That figure has been cited widely, especially by those disparaging the movie. The final production budget is closer to $10 million, and the full budget is likely to be $25 million by the time the movie is released.
* Vadim Perelman is not the director. He was involved in plans for the movie a few years ago, but they didn’t pan out. The director is Paul Johansson.
* “Hollywood” won’t have a chance to ruin it. Many people have complained that Hollywood will inevitably water down Ayn Rand’s themes, but actually there were no major studios involved. The first part of the trilogy was financed out of John Aglialoro’s pocket. The pre-production, shooting, and post processes were not supervised by a studio representative the same way other movies are.

We’ll continue adding (and correcting) myths on this page as we come across them. If you spot any other myths that need to be dispelled, feel free to mention them in the comments below.

Uncategorized

Fashion Trends And Concealed Carry

February 12, 2011 by 4 Comments

In the concealed carry world, fanny packs and photographer’s vests – while comfortable and effective – have been characterized as “shoot me first” tip-offs. They are obvious. Well, obvious at least to those who have some familiarity with concealed carry and firearms. And, it is said, to crooks.

Now, thanks to high fashion that may be changing at least for the fanny pack. Just don’t call them fanny packs. Fashion designers prefer the new hipper name of “bum bag” or “hands free bag”. The prices also reflect it. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Korean-American handbag designer Sang A Im-Propp sells her alligator “belt bag” for $1,995.

So now, women at least can have the belt bag or bum bag for concealed carry and be considered high fashion.

Uncategorized

CCRKBA Urges Investigation Into “Project Gunwalker”

February 11, 2011 by

From the Second Amendment Foundation’s sister group, the Citizen’s Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms comes a demand that the Senate conduct a full and open inquiry into Project Gunwalker

CCRKBA URGES INQUIRY INTO ATF’S ‘PROJECT GUNRUNNER’
Friday, February 11th, 2011

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is urging its members to contact the Senate and demand a full and open inquiry into a controversial gun trafficking sting operation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that may be linked to the December slaying of a federal peace officer.

After Customs and Border Protection Agent Brian Terry was killed in a shootout two months ago, two of the guns recovered at the crime scene were traced to a sale that was part of the ATF’s “Project Gunrunner” investigation. U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has asked the ATF about this case, and has been met by bureau stonewalling. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder this week, Sen. Grassley said it is time to “come clean” about this operation.

“For two years,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “we’ve been hearing from Holder and others in the Obama administration about a so-called ‘iron pipeline’ of American guns across the border. Only after the recent arrests in Arizona did we learn, through court documents, that hundreds of guns were allowed to be purchased by alleged straw buyers, while ATF conducted its investigation. Now, according to various news reports, two of those guns showed up at a crime scene where a federal officer lost his life. What is going on here?

“CCRKBA applauds Sen. Grassley’s persistence in trying to get at the truth,” he continued. “We are asking our members to call their Senators and encourage them to support Grassley’s inquiry effort, and press for a full Senate investigation.

“We also want to know if ATF officials tried to retaliate against agency whistleblowers who have cooperated with Grassley’s office,” Gottlieb added, “and we are delighted that the senator is pushing forward.”

“Wouldn’t it be ironic,” he observed, “to learn that while the Obama administration was blaming our gun rights for the drug war violence in Mexico, its own gun sting operation was a major source of illicit firearms?”

Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Uncategorized

Interview With Mother Of Slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry

February 11, 2011 by

Insiders with whom David Codrea has spoken for his Nation Gun Rights Examiner column dispute some of the assertions made by former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton who was interviewed in the video above.

Former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton reportedly “has seen sting operations like Project Gunrunner in action,” the video informs us. But that is contrary to assertions received by this investigator from an insider source who maintains the only circumstances where this would be an acceptable policy with firearms is in the case of “controlled deliveries…under the strictest of conditions.”

It will be interesting to see, once hearings have begun, if any agent or manager will testify under oath that allowing uncontrolled mass numbers of supposedly monitored guns to escape into the wild is part of any recognized and authorized ATF policy.

Uncategorized

HR 591 – Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2011

February 11, 2011 by

The text of Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s HR 591 is now available. It is similar to S. 35 introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) that would have the same title. They differ somewhat in the details but not in substance. Both would require private sales between individuals to be conducted with a FFL as an intermediary.

California has a similar program in place called the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) process which mandates ALL transactions involving firearms be conducted through a licensed entity. Both bills would continue the push for “Californication” of gun laws. If there was ever a reason that we need to pay attention to what happens in California, this is it.

Lautenberg’s bill has added one new co-sponsor – Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado. I guess Bennet’s statements about respecting the rights of gun owners during his campaign against challenger Ken Buck in 2010 were mere fluff meant to placate the gun owning voters of Colorado.

The text of McCarthy’s bill is below:

H.R.591 — Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2011
HR 591 IH
112th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 591
To require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at gun shows.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 9, 2011
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself and Mr. CICILLINE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
—————————————————————————

A BILL
To require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions occurring at gun shows.

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 `Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. GUN SHOW BACKGROUND CHECK.

(a) Findings- The Congress finds that–

(1) approximately 5,200 traditional gun shows are held annually across the United States, attracting thousands of attendees per show and hundreds of Federal firearms licensees and unlicensed firearms sellers; and

(2) gun shows at which firearms are exhibited or offered for sale or exchange provide a convenient and centralized commercial location where criminals and other prohibited persons obtain firearms without background checks and without records that enable firearm tracing.

(b) Definitions- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36) Gun Show- The term `gun show’–

`(A) means any event at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange, or transfer, if 1 or more of the firearms has been shipped or transported in, or otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce;

`(B) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer by an individual from the personal collection of that individual, at the private residence of that individual, if the individual is not required to be licensed under section 923; and

`(C) does not include an offer or exhibit of firearms for sale, exchange, or transfer at events–

`(i) where not more than 100 firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, exchange or transfer;

`(ii) that are conducted by private, not-for-profit organizations whose primary purpose is owning and maintaining real property for the purpose of hunting activities; and

`(iii) that are attended only by permanent or annual dues-paying members of the organizations, and the members of the immediate families of the dues-paying members.

`(37) Gun Show Vendor- The term `gun show vendor’ means a person who is not licensed under section 923 and who exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges a firearm at a gun show, regardless of whether or not the person arranges with the gun show operator for a fixed location from which to exhibit, sell, offer for sale, transfer, or exchange the firearm.’.

(c) Regulation of Firearms Transfers at Gun Shows-

(1) IN GENERAL- Chapter 44 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 932. Regulation of firearms transfers at gun shows

`(a) Registration of Gun Show Operators– It shall be unlawful for a person to operate a gun show, unless–

`(1) the person has attained 21 years of age;

`(2) the person (and, if the person is a corporation, partnership, or association, each individual possessing, directly or indirectly, the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of the corporation, partnership, or association) is not prohibited by subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 from transporting, shipping, or receiving firearms or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce;

`(3) the person has not willfully violated any provision of this chapter or regulation issued under this chapter;

`(4) the person has registered with the Attorney General as a gun show operator, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Attorney General, and as part of the registration–

`(A) has provided the Attorney General with a photograph and the fingerprints of the person; and

`(B) has certified that the person meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (D) of section 923(d)(1);

`(5) the person has not willfully failed to disclose any material information required, and has not made any false statement as to any material fact, in connection with the registration; and

`(6) the person has paid the Attorney General a fee for the registration, in an amount determined by the Attorney General.

`(b) Responsibilities of Gun Show Operators-

`(1) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for a person to operate a gun show, unless the person–

`(A) not later than 30 days before the commencement of the gun show, notifies the Attorney General, in writing, of the date, time, duration, and location of the gun show, and the identity of each person who will be a gun show vendor at the gun show;

`(B) before commencement of the gun show–

`(i) verifies the identity of each individual who will be a gun show vendor at the gun show by examining a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)(3)) of the individual containing a photograph of the individual; and

`(ii) requires each such individual to sign–

`(I) a ledger, and enter into the ledger identifying information concerning the individual; and

`(II) a notice which sets forth the obligations of a gun show vendor under this chapter; and

`(C) notifies each person who attends the gun show of the requirements of this chapter, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General shall prescribe.

`(2) RECORDKEEPING- A person who operates, or has operated, a gun show shall maintain records demonstrating compliance with paragraph (1)(B), at such place, for such period of time, and in such form as the Attorney General shall require by regulation, or transmit the records to the Attorney General.

`(c) Background Check Required Before Transfer of Firearm Between Unlicensed Persons- It shall be unlawful for a person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer possession of, or title to, a firearm at, or on the curtilage of, a gun show, to another person who is not so licensed, or for a person who is not so licensed to receive possession of, or title to, a firearm at, or on the curtilage of, a gun show from another person who is not so licensed, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer–

`(1) has entered into a separate bound record the make, model, and serial number of the firearm, and such other information about the transaction as the Attorney General may require by regulation; and

`(2) has notified the prospective transferor and prospective transferee of the firearm that the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act has provided the licensee with a unique identification number, indicating that receipt of the firearm by the prospective transferee would not violate section 922 of this title or State law.
`(d) Recordkeeping Requirements-

`(1) IN GENERAL- A licensee who provides a notice pursuant to subsection (c)(2) with respect to the transfer of a firearm shall–

`(A) not later than 10 days after the date of the transfer, submit to the Attorney General a report of the transfer, which report shall specify the make, model, and serial number of the firearm, and contain such other information and be on such form, as the Attorney General shall require by regulation, except that the report shall not include the name of or other identifying information relating to any person involved in the transfer who is not licensed under this chapter; and

`(B) retain a record of the transfer, including the same information as would be required if the transfer were from the inventory of the licensee, as part of the permanent business records of the licensee.

`(2) LIMITATION- The Attorney General may not impose any recordkeeping requirement on any gun show vendor by reason of this section.’.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(8)(A) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a) or (d) of section 932 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

`(B) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (b) or (c) of section 932, shall be–

`(i) fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both; and

`(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

`(C) In addition to any other penalties imposed under this paragraph, the Attorney General may, with respect to any person who knowingly violates any provision of section 932–

`(i) if the person is registered pursuant to section 932(a), after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend for not more than 6 months or revoke the registration of that person under section 932(a); and

`(ii) impose a civil fine in an amount equal to not more than $10,000.’.

(3) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of contents for chapter 44 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 932. Regulation of firearms transfers at gun shows.’.

(d) Inspection Authority- Section 923(g)(1) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(E) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, the Attorney General may enter during business hours any place where a gun show operator operates a gun show or is required to maintain records pursuant to section 932(b)(2), for purposes of examining the records required by sections 923 and 932 and the inventory of licensees conducting business at the gun show. The entry and examination shall be conducted for the purposes of determining compliance with this chapter by gun show operators and licensees conducting business at the gun show, and shall not require a showing of reasonable cause or a warrant.’.

(e) Reports of Multiple Sales Assisted by Licensees at Gun Shows- Section 923(g)(3)(A) of such title is amended by inserting `or provides pursuant to section 932(c)(2) notice with respect to,’ after `sells or otherwise disposes of,’.

(f) Increased Penalties for Serious Recordkeeping Violations by Licensees- Section 924(a)(3) of such title is amended to read as follows:

`(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), any licensed dealer, licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed collector who knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter, or violates section 922(m), shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

`(B) If the violation described in subparagraph (A) is in relation to an offense–

`(i) under paragraph (1) or (3) of section 922(b), such person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; or

`(ii) under subsection (a)(6) or (d) of section 922, such person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.’.

(g) Increased Penalties for Violations of Criminal Background Check Requirements-

(1) PENALTIES- Section 924(a)(5) of such title is amended–

(A) by striking `subsection (s) or (t) of section 922′ and inserting `section 922(t)’; and

(B) by striking `1′ and inserting `5′.

(2) ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF OFFENSE- Section 922(t)(5) of such title is amended by striking `and, at the time’ and all that follows through `State law’.

(h) Authority To Hire Personnel To Inspect Gun Shows- The Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives may hire at least 40 additional Industry Operations Investigators for the purpose of carrying out inspections of gun shows (as defined in section 921(a)(36) of title 18, United States Code).
(i) Report to the Congress- The Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives shall submit biennial reports to the Congress on how firearms (as defined in section 921(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code) are sold at gun shows (as defined in paragraph (36) of such section), how this section is being carried out, whether firearms are being sold without background checks conducted by the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, what resources are needed to carry out this section, and any recommendations for improvements to ensure that firearms are not sold without the background checks.

(j) Effective Date- This section and the amendments made by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.