A Republican bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- In Senate committee
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This Act, known as the ``NICS Data Reporting Act of a 2026'', requires the Attorney General to submit annual reports to Congress. These reports must contain demographic data regarding individuals determined ineligible to purchase a firearm through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The data must be broken down by the reason for the ineligibility determination. It must include information such as race, sex, age, and income, where available. The report also covers instances where an ineligibility determination was overturned on appeal.
Yes· 3 of 12
- Scored +4
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The act mandates transparency regarding the demographic impacts of the NICS system.
- Scored +3
Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated?
The report provides transparency that could help identify racial disparities in firearm eligibility determinations.
- Scored +2
Would Black Americans be better off under this?
The reporting may highlight racial disparities in firearm ineligibility.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this protect people from being watched or searched?
The requirement to collect and report sensitive demographic data presents potential privacy concerns.
- Scored -2
Does this give people more control over their personal data?
The bill requires the collection and reporting of highly sensitive personal demographic data, which increases privacy risks.
- Scored -2
Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country?
The mandate for collecting sensitive demographic data on ineligible persons could be viewed as expanding data collection/surveillance.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Transparency: The Attorney General must submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of both the Senate and the House containing demographic data for persons determined ineligible to purchase a firearm (Section 2). This provides specific data points like race, sex, and age to help monitor the background check system.
-
Accountability for Overturned Decisions: The report must include demographic data for cases where an ineligibility determination was overturned on appeal (Section 2, subsection 2). This allows for oversight regarding how these decisions are handled.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No specific negative impacts or burdens are mentioned in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Black Americans be better off under this? — The reporting may highlight racial disparities in firearm ineligibility. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — The reporting may highlight racial disparities in firearm ineligibility. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The reporting may highlight racial disparities in firearm ineligibility. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The reporting may highlight racial disparities in firearm ineligibility. Would white Americans be better off under this? — The reporting may highlight racial disparities in firearm ineligibility. Would gun owners be better off under this? — The reporting on overturned determinations provides a mechanism to monitor and potentially challenge errors in ineligibility.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — The report provides transparency that could help identify racial disparities in firearm eligibility determinations. Does this put more limits on buying or owning guns? — The act enhances oversight of the existing background check system used for gun control. Does this protect the right to own guns? — The tracking of overturned determinations provides visibility into successful appeals of ineligibility.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The act mandates transparency regarding the demographic impacts of the NICS system. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Tracking overturned determinations provides oversight for those successfully challenging ineligibility. Does this give the federal government more power? — The act increases the reporting obligations of the Attorney General to Congress. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — The requirement to collect and report sensitive demographic data presents potential privacy concerns.
- Education And Technology
- Does this give people more control over their personal data? — The bill requires the collection and reporting of highly sensitive personal demographic data, which increases privacy risks.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country? — The mandate for collecting sensitive demographic data on ineligible persons could be viewed as expanding data collection/surveillance.
- 5/13/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 5/12/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3369)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3369)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2267.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3369-3370)
- Mr. Massie moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 10/3/2025
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-336.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 288.
- 3/25/2025
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
- 3/21/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Ben ClineRepublican · Virginia
Victoria SpartzRepublican · Indiana