Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Our Second Amendment Data Act
Description: This bill places conditions on certain grants by requiring certifications related to the disclosure of personally identifiable information of individuals involved in certain firearms transactions.
Sponsors: Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals participating in firearms transactions
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The bill is related to firearms transactions, suggesting it impacts those buying or selling firearms.
- The U.S. has a high rate of gun ownership, with tens of millions of gun owners.
- There were approximately 19 million firearms sold in the U.S. in 2020 alone.
- The legislation pertains to protecting data, likely impacting all involved in gun transactions.
Reasoning
- The population potentially affected includes individuals involved in firearms transactions, which is estimated to be about 100 million across the United States.
- The budget constraints limit the depth of policy impact, primarily benefiting those with higher transaction volumes or who are particularly concerned about data privacy.
- While most gun owners and sellers might see limited immediate benefits, individuals with concerns about privacy may perceive higher benefits.
- The policy won't directly affect the wellbeing of all gun owners, only those who transact and are concerned about data privacy.
Simulated Interviews
Gun Shop Owner (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about client data privacy.
- Believes the legislation will bolster customer trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Gun Enthusiast and Homeowner (Colorado)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Appreciates additional data privacy protections.
- Sees it as a positive development for responsible gun owners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Data Analyst (California)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although not directly impacted, supportive as a step towards more secure data handling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Police Officer (Mississippi)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Pleased with any policy that prioritizes personal identity protection.
- Does not foresee significant personal impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Student (New York)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supportive as this aligns with broader privacy concerns.
- Unlikely to interact directly with firearms legislation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Hunting Guide (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finds value in improved data protection.
- Believes it will reassure clients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Real Estate Agent (Florida)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy feels largely irrelevant to everyday firearm dealings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Wildlife Conservationist (Alaska)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supports protective data regulations.
- Feels it's an appropriate measure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Student and Part-time Ranch Worker (Montana)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees merit in protecting personal data.
- Has a limited understanding of full repercussions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Lawyer (Illinois)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supports enhanced privacy measures.
- Believes it sets a precedent for future privacy legislation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $14000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 10: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring robust data protection can prevent legal challenges and data breaches, saving long-term administrative and legal costs.
- Training and certification regarding the handling of sensitive data might present initial cost spikes.
- Indefinite data protection mandates require periodic reviews for cost-effectiveness.