Protecting Our Second Amendment Data Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 12, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to protect the privacy of firearm owners and applicants by conditioning federal justice grants on the non-disclosure of their personal information by grant recipients.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to mandate that entities applying for certain federal justice assistance grants, including Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, Discretionary Grants, and COPS Grants, must certify they have not knowingly disclosed personally identifiable information related to firearm transactions in the previous fiscal year. Failure to provide this certification would render them ineligible for these federal funds. It also defines 'firearm' and 'personally identifiable information' for the purposes of these new requirements.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill is essential for protecting the Second Amendment rights and privacy of law-abiding citizens by preventing the creation or dissemination of firearm owner registries, which they view as a potential precursor to confiscation or harassment. They contend it safeguards sensitive personal data from intentional or accidental leaks by government agencies and private entities receiving federal funds.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that this bill could hinder legitimate law enforcement efforts or public safety initiatives that rely on data sharing, particularly in cases where such information could be relevant to criminal investigations or preventing gun violence. They may also contend that it could create an unnecessary barrier to federal funding for critical justice programs by imposing a broad and potentially difficult-to-monitor certification requirement.
The bill is very short and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for comprehensive evaluation.
Section 2, amending Section 502(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10153(a))
Certification for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants
This provision adds a new requirement for applicants seeking Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants (Byrne JAG). To receive these grants, states, local governments, and Indian tribes must certify that they have not intentionally, accidentally, or otherwise knowingly disclosed personally identifiable information of individuals involved in firearm-related transactions during the previous fiscal year.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this ensures federal funds do not support entities that compromise the privacy of firearm owners, reinforcing Second Amendment protections by preventing the creation or misuse of gun owner registries.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this could complicate data sharing necessary for public safety or criminal investigations, potentially forcing agencies to choose between federal funding and certain data practices.
Tradeoffs
Balances the privacy rights of firearm owners against potential needs for data sharing in law enforcement or public safety contexts.
Section 3(a), amending Section 517 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10181)
Certification for Discretionary Grants to Public Agencies
This section extends the non-disclosure certification requirement to public agencies applying for discretionary grants under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. Similar to Byrne JAG grants, applicants must certify they have not disclosed firearm-related personally identifiable information in the prior fiscal year to be eligible for these funds.
Section 3(b), amending Section 519(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10191(b))
Certification for Discretionary Grants to Private Entities
This provision mandates that private entities applying for discretionary grants under the Act must certify they have not used, disseminated, or facilitated the use or dissemination of personally identifiable information related to firearm transactions. This extends the privacy protection requirement to non-governmental organizations receiving federal funds.
Section 3(c), amending Section 1701 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381)
Certification for COPS Grants
This section requires the COPS Director and BJA Director to demand a similar non-disclosure certification from States, units of local government, and Indian tribes when awarding COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) grants. The certification must affirm that the applicant has not knowingly disclosed firearm-related personally identifiable information in the previous fiscal year.
Section 4, amending Section 901(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251(a))
Definitions of 'Firearm' and 'Personally Identifiable Information'
This section adds two new definitions to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. It defines 'firearm' by referencing section 921 of title 18, United States Code, and defines 'personally identifiable information' as data that can distinguish or trace an individual's identity, including name, social security number, date/place of birth, biometric records, phone numbers, or other demographic, medical, or financial information.
This section defines 'firearm' by reference to 18 U.S.C. 921 and 'personally identifiable information' as data that can distinguish or trace an individual's identity, including name, social security number, date and place of birth, biometric records, home or other phone numbers, or other demographic, medical, or financial information.
Section 4
Why it matters:While placing definitions at the end is standard legislative practice, the broad scope of 'personally identifiable information' is critical to the bill's impact and could be easily overlooked despite its significance.
Case for: Supporters argue these definitions are essential for ensuring the bill's protections are consistently applied and understood, covering a wide range of data points that could identify a firearm owner, thereby preventing loopholes.
Case against: Critics might argue that the broad definition of 'personally identifiable information' could be overly restrictive, potentially encompassing data that is not directly sensitive or necessary for privacy protection, thus creating unnecessary compliance burdens for grant recipients.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the scope of data protection for potentially millions of firearm owners and applicants, impacting data handling practices across numerous federal grant recipients.