Legislation
WASHINGTON (PNN) - May 28, 2020 - The full text of the executive order has been published (the final order is essentially identical to a 'draft' copy leaked to the press last night):
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1.
Policy.
Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.
When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse.
Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets.
Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China.
One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance.
It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.
Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights.
They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec. 2.
Protections Against Online Censorship.
(a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c).
It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.
As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability "protection" to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in "'Good Samaritan' blocking" of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material.
The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the Internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable."
It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that - far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content - instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.
Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.
When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and (iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec. 3.
Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech.
(a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017).
Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5.
State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws.
(a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and (v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec. 6.
Legislation.
The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec. 7.
Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
UNITED STATES POLICY ON PRE- AND POST-STRIKE MEASURES TO ADDRESS CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN U.S. OPERATIONS INVOLVING THE USE OF FORCE
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. United States policy on civilian casualties resulting from U.S. operations involving the use of force in armed conflict or in the exercise of the Nation’s inherent right of self-defense is based on our national interests, our values, and our legal obligations. As a Nation, we are steadfastly committed to complying with our obligations under the law of armed conflict, including those that address the protection of civilians, such as the fundamental principles of necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality.
114th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1466
To repeal the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and
for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 19, 2015
Mr. Pocan (for himself, Mr. Massie, Mr. Grayson, Mr. McGovern, and Mr. Doggett) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), Financial Services, Foreign Affairs,
Energy and Commerce, Education and the Workforce, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To repeal the USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and
for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Surveillance State Repeal Act''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF USA PATRIOT ACT.
(a) Repeal.--The USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56) is repealed,
and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored
or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.
(b) Destruction of Certain Information.--The Director of National
Intelligence and the Attorney General shall destroy any information
collected under the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56) and the
amendments made by such Act, as in effect the day before the date of
the enactment of this Act, concerning a United States person that is
not related to an investigation that is actively ongoing on such date.
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008.
(a) Repeal.--The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-261;
122 Stat. 2477) is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or
repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not
been enacted.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) of this Act shall not apply to
sections 103 and 110 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law
110-261; 122 Stat. 2477).
(c) Destruction of Certain Information.--The Director of National
Intelligence and the Attorney General shall destroy any information
collected under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881a), as in effect the day before the date of
the enactment of this Act, concerning a United States person that is
not related to an investigation that is actively ongoing on such date.
SEC. 4. TERMS OF JUDGES ON FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT;
REAPPOINTMENT; SPECIAL MASTERS.
(a) Terms; Reappointment.--Section 103(d) of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``maximum of seven'' and inserting
``maximum of ten''; and
(2) by striking ``and shall not be eligible for
redesignation''.
(b) Special Masters.--Section 103(f) of such Act, as amended by
section 3 of this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(4) Special Masters.--
``(A) The courts established pursuant to subsections (a)
and (b) may appoint one or more Special Masters to advise the
courts on technical issues raised during proceedings before the
courts.
``(B) In this paragraph, the term `Special Master' means an
individual who has technological expertise in the subject
matter of a proceeding before a court established pursuant to
subsection (a) or (b).''.
SEC. 5. ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF SPECIFIED PERSONS WITHOUT REGARD TO
SPECIFIC DEVICE.
Section 105(c)(2)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805(c)(2)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) that, upon the request of the applicant, any
person or entity shall furnish the applicant forthwith
all information, facilities, or technical assistance
necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in
such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a
minimum of interference with the services that such
carrier, landlord, custodian, or other person is
providing that target of electronic surveillance;''.
SEC. 6. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS FOR COLLECTIONS UNDER THE FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.
(a) In General.--Title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended by section 3 of this
Act, is further amended to read as follows:
TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 701. WARRANT REQUIREMENT.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no information
relating to a United States person may be acquired pursuant to this Act
without a valid warrant based on probable cause.''.
(b) Table of Contents Amendments.--The table of contents in the
first section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended by section 3 of this Act, is further
amended by striking the items relating to title VII and section 701 and
inserting the following new items:
TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
701. Warrant requirement.
SEC. 7. ENCRYPTION AND PRIVACY TECHNOLOGY OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES AND
SOFTWARE.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government
shall not mandate that the manufacturer of an electronic device or
software for an electronic device build into such device or software a
mechanism that allows the Federal Government to bypass the encryption
or privacy technology of such device or software.
SEC. 8. GAO COMPLIANCE EVALUATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United States shall
annually evaluate compliance by the Federal Government with the
provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
(b) Report.--The Comptroller General shall annually submit to
Congress a report containing the results of the evaluation conducted
under subsection (a).
SEC. 9. WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINTS.
(a) Authorization To Report Complaints or Information.--An employee
of or contractor to an element of the intelligence community that has
knowledge of the programs and activities authorized by the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) may
submit a covered complaint--
(1) to the Comptroller General of the United States;
(2) to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of
the House of Representatives;
(3) to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate;
or
(4) in accordance with the process established under
section 103H(k)(5) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50
U.S.C. 3033(k)(5)).
(b) Investigations and Reports to Congress.--The Comptroller
General shall investigate a covered complaint submitted pursuant to
subsection (b)(1) and shall submit to Congress a report containing the
results of the investigation.
(c) Covered Complaint Defined.--In this section, the term ``covered
complaint'' means a complaint or information concerning programs and
activities authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) that an employee or contractor reasonably
believes is evidence of--
(1) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or
(2) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse
of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public
health or safety.
SEC. 10. PROHIBITION ON INTERFERENCE WITH REPORTING OF WASTE, FRAUD,
ABUSE, OR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
officer or employee of an element of the intelligence community shall
take any retaliatory action against an employee of or contractor to an
element of the intelligence community who seeks to disclose or
discloses covered information to--
(1) the Comptroller General;
(2) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the
House of Representatives;
(3) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; or
(4) the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community.
(b) Administrative Sanctions.--An officer or employee of an element
of the intelligence community who violates subsection (a) shall be
subject to administrative sanctions, up to and including termination.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Covered information.--The term ``covered information''
means any information (including classified or sensitive
information) that an employee or contractor reasonably believes
is evidence of--
(A) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or
(B) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an
abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific
danger to public health or safety.
(2) Intelligence community.--The term ``intelligence
community'' has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003).
SEC. 11. PROHIBITION OF TARGETING UNITED STATES PERSONS UNDER EXECUTIVE
ORDER 12333 WITHOUT A WARRANT.
(a) Prohibition on Targeting of United States Persons Without a
Warrant.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no United States
person may be the target of an acquisition under Executive Order 12333
without a valid warrant based on probable cause.
(b) Audit of Compliance With Prohibition.--
(1) Audit.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall annually conduct an audit of intelligence collection
under Executive Order 12333 to ensure compliance with the
requirement under subsection (a).
(2) Report.--The Comptroller General shall annually submit
to Congress a report containing the results of each audit
conducted under paragraph (1).
(c) Destruction of Certain Information.--The Director of National
Intelligence and the Attorney General shall destroy any information
collected under Executive Order 12333 without a valid warrant based on
probable cause concerning a United States person that is not related to
an investigation that is actively ongoing on the date of the enactment of this Act.
AMENDMENT TO THE RULES COMMITTEE PRINT
OF H.R. 1960
OFFERED BY MR. GRAYSON OF FLORIDA
Page 432, after line 21, insert the following:
SEC. 1065. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR INFORMATION GATHERING ON CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES WHILE LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE.
(a) PROHIBITION.—None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2014 or any succeeding fiscal year may be used to collect any information generated by a citizen of the United States while located in the United States, including telephone records, internet records, and physical location information, without probable cause of a terrorism offense or an offense within the jurisdiction of the Uniform Code of Military Justice related to action or conduct by that citizen.
(b) UNITED STATES.—In this section, the term “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
113th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 226
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against
tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 14, 2013
Ms. DeLauro (for herself and Mr. Grijalva) introduced the following
bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against
tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Support Assault Firearms Elimination
and Reduction for our Streets Act”.
SEC. 2. ASSAULT WEAPON TURN-IN CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before
section 26 the following new section:
SEC. 25E. ASSAULT WEAPON TURN-IN CREDIT.
(a) Allowance of Credit.--
(1) In general.--In the case of an individual who
surrenders a specified assault weapon to the United States or a
State or local government (or political subdivision thereof) as
part of a Federal, State, or local public safety program to
reduce the number of privately owned weapons, on the election
of the taxpayer there shall be allowed as a credit against the
tax imposed by this chapter an amount equal to $2,000.
(2) Year credit allowed.--The amount of the credit under
paragraph (1) shall be allowed \1/2\ for the taxable year
during which the assault weapon was so surrendered and \1/2\ in
the next taxable year.
(b) Special Rules.--
(1) Weapon must be lawfully possessed.--No credit shall
be allowed under subsection (a) with respect to any specified
assault weapon not lawfully possessed by the taxpayer at the
time the weapon is surrendered.
(2) Substantiation requirement.--No credit shall be
allowed under subsection (a) for the surrender of any specified
assault weapon unless the taxpayer substantiates the surrender
by a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the surrender by
the Federal, State, or local governmental entity to which the
weapon is surrendered.
(3) Denial of double benefit.--The taxpayer may elect the
application of this section with respect to only 1 weapon, and
if such election is made for any taxable year, no deduction
shall be allowed under any other provision of this chapter with
respect to the surrender or contribution of the specified
assault weapon.
(c) Assault Weapon.--For purposes of this section--
(1) In general.--The term `specified assault weapon'
means any of the following:
(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates
thereof:
(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM,
MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93,
VEPR,
(ii) AR-10,
(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite
M15, or Olympic Arms PCR,
(iv) AR70,
(v) Calico Liberty,
(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or
Dragunov SVU,
(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR,
or FNC,
(viii) Hi-Point Carbine,
(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1,
(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle,
(xi) M1 Carbine,
(xii) Saiga,
(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800,
(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine,
(xv) SLG 95,
(xvi) SLR 95 or 96,
(xvii) Steyr AUG,
(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14,
(xix) Tavor,
(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or
Thompson 1927 Commando, or
(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil
Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates
thereof:
(i) Calico M-110,
(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3,
(iii) Olympic Arms OA,
(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or
AB-10, or
(v) Uzi.
(C) The following shotguns or copies or
duplicates thereof:
(i) Armscor 30 BG,
(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
(iii) Striker 12, or
(iv) Streetsweeper.
(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to
accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip,
(iv) a forward grip, or
(v) a barrel shroud.
(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a
semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached
tubular device designed to accept, and capable of
operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability
to accept a detachable magazine, and has--
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud, or
(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable
magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.
(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine
that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip,
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable
magazine, or
(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more
than 5 rounds.
(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or
based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a
firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through
(I) or (L).
(K) A conversion kit.
(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally
designed for military or law enforcement use, or a
firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is
not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as
determined by the Attorney General. In making the
determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption
that a firearm procured for use by the United States
military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not
particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a
firearm shall not be determined to be particularly
suitable for sporting purposes solely because the
firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.
``(2) Related definitions.--
(A) Barrel shroud.--The term `barrel shroud'
means a shroud that is attached to, or partially or
completely encircles, the barrel of a firearm so that
the shroud protects the user of the firearm from heat
generated by the barrel, but does not include a slide
that encloses the barrel, and does not include an
extension of the stock along the bottom of the barrel
which does not encircle or substantially encircle the barrel.
(B) Conversion kit.--The term `conversion kit'
means any part or combination of parts designed and
intended for use in converting a firearm into a
semiautomatic assault weapon, and any combination of
parts from which a semiautomatic assault weapon can be
assembled if the parts are in the possession or under
the control of a person.
(C) Detachable magazine.--The term `detachable
magazine' means an ammunition feeding device that can
readily be inserted into a firearm.
(D) Fixed magazine.--The term `fixed magazine'
means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or
permanently attached to, a firearm.
(E) Folding or telescoping stock.--The term
`folding or telescoping stock' means a stock that
folds, telescopes, or otherwise operates to reduce the
length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise
enhances the concealability, of a firearm.
(F) Forward grip.--The term `forward grip' means
a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as
a pistol grip.
(G) Pistol grip.--The term `pistol grip' means a
grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic
that can function as a grip.
(H) Threaded barrel.--The term `threaded barrel'
means a feature or characteristic that is designed in
such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm
as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms
Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).
``(d) Termination.--This section shall not apply with respect to
any weapon surrendered during a taxable year beginning more than 2
years after the date of the enactment of the Support Assault Firearms
Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart A of
part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 is amended by inserting before the
item relating to section 26 the following new item:
``Sec. 25E. Assault weapon turn-in credit.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply totaxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.