Bill Overview
Title: Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act of 2022
Description: This bill makes various changes to the federal framework governing the sale, transfer, and possession of firearms and ammunition. Among other changes, the bill generally requires individuals to obtain a license to purchase, acquire, or possess a firearm or ammunition; raises the minimum age—from 18 years to 21 years—to purchase firearms and ammunition; establishes new background check requirements for firearm transfers between private parties; creates a statutory process for a family or household member to petition a court for an extreme risk protection order to remove firearms from an individual who poses a risk of committing violence; restricts the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices; restricts the manufacture, sale, transfer, purchase, or receipt of ghost guns (i.e., guns without serial numbers); requires federally licensed gun dealers to submit and annually certify compliance with a security plan to detect and deter firearm theft; removes limitations on the civil liability of gun manufacturers; allows the Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue safety standards for firearms and firearm components; establishes a community violence intervention grant program; and promotes research on firearms safety and gun violence prevention.
Sponsors: Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [D-GA-4]
Target Audience
Population: people affected by legislation on firearms
Estimated Size: 106000000
- The legislation will impact anyone involved in the sale, transfer, and possession of firearms and ammunition as it changes licensing and age requirements,"semente giriş","leeftijdsbeperkingen"and includes new background check protocols.
- The bill establishes measures related to assault weapons, ghost guns, and firearm safety standards, affecting gun dealers, manufacturers, and consumers.
- It introduces mechanisms for risk protection orders, which could impact families and individuals associated with those flagged as potential risks.
- The bill proposes community violence intervention grant programs which target community organizations and indirectly benefits communities susceptible to gun violence.
- Research on firearms safety and gun violence prevention could potentially influence a broader audience, by guiding future policies.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a significant demographic including gun owners, young adults aged 18-21, manufacturers, and community organizations involved in violence prevention.
- Budget constraints limit large scale immediate impacts but allow for substantial community intervention programs.
- Not everyone will perceive the benefits equally; some may feel restricted by increased regulations while others may feel safer.
- Emphasis on safety could gradually benefit a vast population by reducing violence rates, indirectly affecting societal wellbeing.
- Considering the U.S. context of firearm prevalence, many directly and indirectly related to gun activities will notice changes.
Simulated Interviews
Gun Shop Owner (Texas)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased regulation might make it harder for my business to survive.
- I understand the safety concerns, but the compliance and security demands are costly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Community Organizer (New York)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction for reducing community violence.
- The community grant program could really help us fund preventive initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
College Student (Florida)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm frustrated that I can't purchase firearms until I'm 21 now.
- I get the intention, but it feels like my rights are being limited.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
Gun Manufacturer Executive (Illinois)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation may put us at risk of increased lawsuits which is concerning.
- Safety is important, but the increased oversight and liability are challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 9 |
Researcher (California)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's exciting to see research being promoted by this policy.
- Finally, there seems to be a federal push towards evidence-based interventions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Police Officer (Ohio)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The risk protection orders could potentially help us intervene before violence occurs.
- This policy might make my community safer, but we need public cooperation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
High School Teacher (Georgia)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Raising the age for gun purchases is a good idea for the safety of the youth.
- I hope this leads to better safety at schools, but more community input is needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Firearms Enthusiast (Pennsylvania)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry that this policy infringes on my rights as a law-abiding citizen.
- Some measures might help reduce crime, but it feels like overreach in daily life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 8 |
Retired (Michigan)
Age: 64 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm thankful for any policy that can prevent stories like mine from happening.
- This might increase public safety, but we need to ensure effective enforcement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Small Business Owner (Nevada)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for regulations, but it could hit my shop's bottom line.
- We may have to adapt, perhaps diversify more of our offerings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 2: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 3: $1600000000 (Low: $1250000000, High: $1900000000)
Year 5: $1600000000 (Low: $1250000000, High: $1900000000)
Year 10: $1700000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 100: $1700000000 (Low: $1400000000, High: $2100000000)
Key Considerations
- Enhancements to the federal framework governing firearms could significantly alter compliance requirements for individuals and businesses.
- Developing a robust licensing system will require significant initial expenditures but could offer long-term benefits in terms of public safety.
- The effectiveness of community violence interventions will depend heavily on the proper allocation and management of grant resources.
- Changes in firearm sales and the manufacturer liability landscape may affect industry profitability and employment.