Search

The article presents a report of the U.S. Congressional Research Service that focuses on the scope of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) after Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that a wrongful death lawsuit may go forward against manufacturer and dealer of rifle used by assailant in the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. It mentions Congress enacted PLCAA in 2005 to prohibit lawsuits against firearm and ammunition manufacturers.

The article offers an overview of legal developments of online dissemination of computer files for 3D printing of non-metallic firearms in U.S. It expresses the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and implementing International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) authorizes the President of the U.S. to control the import and the export of defense articles and defense services. It also mentions the Texas Lawsuit against a non-profit private defense firm and federally licensed firearms manufacturer.

Federal taxes on firearms and ammunition are collected through different methods and used for different purposes, depending on the nature of the firearms. Some tax receipts are used for wildlife restoration and for hunter education and safety, for example, whereas others are deposited into the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. The assessment of these taxes and the uses of generated revenues are routinely of interest to many in Congress. In general, taxes on the manufacture of firearms (including pistols and revolvers as well as rifles and other long guns) and ammunition are collected as excise taxes based on the manufacturer's or importer's sales price, under the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §4181). These taxes are imposed on the manufacturer's sales price at a rate of 10% on pistols and revolvers and 11% on ammunition and other firearms. (Pistols and revolvers, ammunition, and other firearms each account for about a third of these tax revenues.) The tax, which raised $761.6 million in FY2017, is administered by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) in the Department of the Treasury. These revenues are allocated to the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund, also known as the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund, and used for wildlife restoration and for hunter safety and education purposes. Established by the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 (16 U.S.C. §§669-669k, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act), the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior. It also receives revenues from taxes on bows and arrows (26 U.S.C. §4161(b)). Amounts in the fund are allocated to states and selected territories based on formulas, with the largest share for wildlife restoration, apportioned one-half according to the size of the area and one-half according to the area's share of the overall number of hunting licenses (with a floor and ceiling on these allocations). The federal cost share for most activities receiving support from the fund is capped at 75%. Taxes also are collected for the making and transfer of certain types of firearms and equipment (such as machine guns, short-barreled firearms, and silencers) regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA; 26 U.S.C. §§5801 et seq.). These taxes originally were set at a level intended to slow the transfer of these weapons, although the tax has not been raised since the NFA was enacted in 1934. In addition, special occupational taxes are collected from federally licensed gun dealers who manufacture, import, or sell NFA firearms. NFA-generated tax receipts are deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury. These tax receipts totaled $68.6 million in FY2016. A variety of proposals have been advanced in recent Congresses that could affect the taxes on firearms and the uses of resulting revenues. In the 115th Congress, some legislative proposals, several of which are known as the Hearing Protection Act, would remove firearm silencers from regulation and taxation under the NFA; firearm silencers would be taxed along with pistols and revolvers at 10%, with revenues deposited into the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund primarily in support of public target ranges. Other proposals would allow funds to be used to promote hunting and recreational shooting or for Mexican gray wolf management. Still other proposals would increase taxes on guns or ammunition, with proceeds used for gun-violence concerns (e.g., compensation to teachers who are victims of a school shooting, hiring law enforcement personnel, and neighborhood safety). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on how the U.S. government has worked to curb gun trafficking in the country. Topics discussed include the common gun trafficking activities that have been monitored by law agencies and the regulation of the firearms industry by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The federal prosecution of violators under 18 U.S.C. Sections 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A) and proposals for increased penalties for straw-purchasing schemes are also mentioned.

The M-4 carbine is the Army’s primary individual combat weapon for infantry units. While there have been concerns raised by some about the M-4’s reliability and lethality, some studies suggest that the M-4 is performing well and is viewed favorably by users. The Army is undertaking both the M4 Carbine Improvement Program and the Individual Carbine Competition, the former to identify ways to improve the current weapon, and the latter to conduct an open competition among small arms manufacturers for a follow-on weapon. An integrated product team comprising representatives from the Infantry Center; the Armament, Research, Development, and Engineering Center; the Program Executive Office Soldier; and each of the armed services will assess proposed improvements to the M4. The proposal for the industry-wide competition is currently before the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, and with the anticipated approval, solicitation for industry submissions could begin this fall. It is expected, however, that a selection for a follow-on weapon will not occur before FY2013, and that fielding of a new weapon would take an additional three to four years. This report will be updated as events warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, H.R. 1036, 108th Congress, as passed by the House on April 9, 2003, would prohibit lawsuits, except in specified circumstances, against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm or ammunition, or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or ammunition. A similar bill, S. 659, has been introduced in the Senate, and, except where indicated in a footnote, every statement in this report about H.R. 1036 also applies to S. 659. Subsequently, S. 659 was reintroduced in identical form as S. 1806, and in amended form as S. 1805, and, on November 3, 2003, S. 1805 and S. 1806 were placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. The differences between S. 1805 and the other Senate bills are noted at the end of this report. This report examines H.R. 1036, 108th Congress, as ordered to be reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on April 3, 2003, and passed by the House without amendment on April 9, 2003. H.R. 1036, titled the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," would prohibit lawsuits, except in specified circumstances, against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm or ammunition, or a trade association, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm or ammunition. The bill would also require that pending lawsuits brought by shooting victims and municipalities "be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending."1 Among the circumstances when the bill would not preclude2 a lawsuit to be brought or to continue would be when the defendant violated 18 U.S.C. ? 924(h) by transferring a firearm, knowing that it would be used to commit a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the regulation of military style firearms manufacture, sale, and transfer in the U.S. Topics discussed include the enforcement of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which banned the possession and transfer of semiautomatic assault weapons and the introduction of the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act. Proposals for banning ammunition magazines with a greater than 10-round capacity are then mentioned.

The article discusses U.S. laws relating to military-style firearms. It describes the 10-year ban on the possession, transfer or further domestic manufacture of certain semiautomatic assault weapons (SAW) and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (LCAFD) under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The ramifications of the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act on the importation and transferability of some detachable ammunition magazines are also cited.

B-400479 November 20, 2008 Smith & Wesson, Inc. of Springfield, Massachusetts protests as unreasonable the justification and approval (J&A) offered by the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) to [...]

The article reports that the government in Great Britain announced tougher controls on trading and transporting arms, as part of its response to public input on British Strategic Export Controls. The effort builds on the recent move to add sting sticks to the list of torture equipment and the government's decision to work within the European Union to introduce a new torture end use control which will make the export of any torture equipment licensable, giving the government power to refuse it.