HR-2184-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 290.
Sponsored by Tom Emmer (R-MN)
What it does
This bill would expand the circumstances under which a person can sue the federal government over a firearm transfer problem. Currently, only people who were wrongly denied a firearm can seek a court remedy. This bill would also allow people to sue if their transfer has been delayed more than 60 days without a final decision. It would require courts to hold hearings quickly, and it would shift the burden of proof to the government — meaning the government, not the individual, would have to prove the person was ineligible to own a firearm.
Who benefits
Individuals whose firearm purchases are delayed more than 60 days through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without a final determination. This includes buyers whose records contain errors or ambiguities that trigger extended holds. Licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) who lose sales due to prolonged delays would also benefit indirectly. People with common names or records that are frequently confused with prohibited persons may benefit most from the expedited hearing requirement.
Who is hurt
Federal agencies — primarily the FBI, which operates NICS — would face new litigation exposure and a reversed burden of proof, potentially increasing administrative and legal costs. Prosecutors and law enforcement officials argue that some extended delays are necessary to complete complex background checks, particularly for individuals with out-of-state records, mental health adjudications, or pending criminal proceedings. The bill could also limit the government's ability to use the existing "default proceed" pause period to complete thorough reviews in ambiguous cases.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that indefinite or excessively long delays in the background check process effectively deny law-abiding citizens their Second Amendment rights without any legal finding of ineligibility. When the government holds a transfer for months or years without resolution, a person who is fully eligible to own a firearm is left in legal limbo with no practical recourse. Shifting the burden of proof to the government is consistent with due process principles — the government, not the individual, should bear the responsibility of justifying a restriction on a constitutional right. The expedited hearing requirement ensures that courts can provide timely relief rather than allowing bureaucratic delays to function as a de facto ban. Supporters also note that NICS errors and record inaccuracies disproportionately affect people with common names or incomplete records, and this bill gives those individuals a meaningful path to vindication.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that extended background check delays are sometimes operationally necessary to protect public safety — complex cases involving out-of-state records, mental health histories, or pending charges can legitimately require more than 60 days to resolve accurately. Forcing the government to defend every delay in court, under an expedited schedule, would strain FBI and DOJ resources and could pressure agencies to rush incomplete reviews rather than face litigation. Shifting the burden of proof to the government in these cases departs from standard civil procedure norms and could make it harder to keep firearms from people who are genuinely ineligible but whose records are difficult to verify quickly. Opponents also contend that the 60-day threshold is arbitrary and does not account for the real-world complexity of multi-jurisdictional record checks, potentially allowing some prohibited persons to obtain firearms through litigation before their full background is confirmed.
Constitutional context
The bill sits at the intersection of the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) established a text-and-history test for firearms regulations, raising questions about how background check delays interact with the right to keep and bear arms. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that the federal government cannot deprive a person of a liberty interest — including a constitutional right — without due process. The burden-shifting provision implicates procedural due process standards. Article III governs the federal courts' role in adjudicating these claims. The bill does not raise Fourth Amendment digital surveillance issues (Carpenter v. US), Eighth Amendment proportionality concerns (Timbs v. Indiana), or jury unanimity questions (Ramos v. Louisiana), though the broader NICS framework has been subject to ongoing Second Amendment litigation post-Bruen.
Checks and balances
The bill shifts authority toward the Judicial Branch by creating a new, expedited cause of action against the Executive Branch (specifically the FBI/DOJ, which administers NICS). It also shifts the burden of proof away from the individual petitioner and onto the government respondent, reducing Executive Branch discretion to sustain delays without judicial scrutiny. Congress, as the Legislative Branch, would be using its Article I authority to define the procedural rules governing these disputes.
Historical precedent
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 established the NICS background check system and originally included a provision allowing "default proceed" after 3 business days if no disqualifying record was found — later extended to allow longer holds in some cases. The existing judicial remedy for wrongful denials (18 U.S.C. § 925A) is the direct statutory predecessor this bill would expand.