This material is general public information for educational purposes only. It should not be used as legal, financial, or tax advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created by reading it. Federal, state, and local rules may vary and may change over time. A qualified professional can review specific circumstances.
Key Facts
- Federal level: In early 2013, ABA President Laurel G. Bellows urged Congress to strengthen the nation’s gun laws to prevent gun violence.
- Federal level: The archived ABA position supported stronger background checks and improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
- Federal level: The same 2013 ABA push also supported legislation aimed at straw purchasing, firearms trafficking, assault weapons, and ammunition devices holding more than 10 bullets.
- Federal level: According to ATF, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act became law on November 30, 1993, and its permanent provisions apply to all firearms.
- Federal level: Current federal firearms law uses 18 U.S.C. § 922 as a core framework for prohibited persons, dealer sales restrictions, and interstate transfer limits.
- Federal level: The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act added federal straw purchasing and firearms trafficking offenses and created enhanced review rules for certain purchasers under 21.
- State level: This varies by state.
- National overview: In 2022, the Supreme Court in Bruen changed the constitutional backdrop for public carry laws by striking down New York’s proper-cause requirement.
Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.
- What this archived 2013 ABA story was about
- The measures the ABA supported in early 2013
- Advocacy is not the same thing as enacted law
- The federal baseline starts with the Brady Law and 18 U.S.C. § 922
- What 18 U.S.C. § 922 covers at a high level
- Some 2013 ideas later appeared in different form in federal law
- What did not become a nationwide federal rule from this 2013 push
- Why State law still matters so much
- The constitutional backdrop changed after Bruen
- The bottom line on this archive topic
- Sources
What this archived 2013 ABA story was about
This page is best read as legal information about an early-2013 policy debate, not as a statement of current binding law. The strongest contemporaneous source available in the record is the ABA’s 2013 Washington Letter archive, which reports that ABA President Laurel G. Bellows urged Congress to take prompt action to prevent gun violence by strengthening the nation’s gun laws.
That distinction matters because the legacy headline sounds like a law update, but the underlying event was advocacy. The ABA was describing measures it supported after the national gun violence debate intensified in early 2013. Those positions did not automatically become Federal or State law.
The measures the ABA supported in early 2013
According to the archived ABA material, the organization backed several major proposals:
- stronger background check requirements
- improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS
- legislation aimed at straw purchasing and illegal firearms trafficking
- limits on the future sale and transfer of assault weapons
- limits on ammunition devices holding more than 10 bullets
These points are historical descriptions of what the ABA urged Congress to do. They are not proof that Congress enacted all of those proposals, because some were later addressed only in part and others remain matters of policy debate.
Advocacy is not the same thing as enacted law
The clearest way to understand this topic is to separate three different layers:
| Layer | What it means |
|---|---|
| ABA policy position in 2013 | A professional organization urged lawmakers to adopt certain gun violence prevention measures. |
| Current Federal law | Binding rules come from statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 922, later federal legislation, and court decisions. |
| Current State law | Firearms rules beyond the federal baseline differ across the states. |
That distinction prevents a common source of confusion. A headline about supporting new measures can describe lobbying, testimony, or public policy advocacy without describing a new law already in force.
The federal baseline starts with the Brady Law and 18 U.S.C. § 922
For present-day federal context, ATF states that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was enacted on November 30, 1993, as an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968. ATF also explains that the Brady Law’s interim five-day waiting period applied only to handgun transfers and ended on November 30, 1998. According to ATF, the permanent Brady provisions apply to all firearms.
Current federal firearms restrictions are anchored heavily in 18 U.S.C. § 922). That statute covers a wide range of unlawful acts, including major dealer-sale restrictions, transfers to prohibited persons, and interstate transfer limits.
In plain language, the federal baseline is broader than background checks alone. It also addresses who may not lawfully receive or possess firearms under federal law and how licensed dealers and private interstate transfers are regulated.
What 18 U.S.C. § 922 covers at a high level
According to the current U.S. Code text, 18 U.S.C. § 922 includes rules that generally:
- bar certain transfers to people in prohibited categories
- bar possession by certain prohibited persons
- limit some dealer sales based on age and firearm type
- restrict many unlicensed interstate transfers between private persons
The prohibited-person categories in the statute include, among others, felony-level convictions, fugitive status, certain domestic violence restrictions, and some mental health adjudications or commitments. That does not answer every firearms law question, but it does explain why § 922 remains the core federal reference point when older policy articles are compared with current law.
Some 2013 ideas later appeared in different form in federal law
One reason this archive topic still matters is that part of the 2013 policy discussion later appeared in subsequent legislation. The official text of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act shows that Congress added enhanced juvenile-record review provisions for certain firearm purchasers under 21. The same law also added federal straw purchasing and firearms trafficking offenses in 18 U.S.C. §§ 932 and 933.
That later legislation does not mean the ABA’s 2013 agenda became law across the board. It does mean some themes from the 2013 debate, especially trafficking, straw purchasing, and background-check-related review issues, eventually appeared in later Federal legislation.
What did not become a nationwide federal rule from this 2013 push
The available official sources do not support several broad claims that often appear in casual summaries of gun policy debates. The record here does not support saying that all private firearm sales nationwide require background checks. It also does not support saying that Federal law now bans assault weapons or large-capacity magazines nationwide.
Those limits are important. The archived ABA material shows support for those measures in 2013, but support for legislation is different from enacted law. Keeping that line clear is central to accurate legal information.
Why State law still matters so much
Even with a substantial federal baseline, State law still plays a major role in firearms regulation. This varies by state. State systems may differ on subjects such as additional background-check requirements, waiting periods, licensing structures, and carry rules.
That means a historical federal policy article cannot serve as a one-size-fits-all statement of present State law. For readers following other archive material about how the ABA has taken positions in public-law debates over time, the site’s piece on ABA support for judicial independence in the states shows a similar institutional advocacy pattern in a very different legal subject.
The constitutional backdrop changed after Bruen
A final reason to read this topic carefully is that the constitutional landscape changed after 2013. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court held in 2022 that New York’s proper-cause requirement for a public-carry license violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also stated that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, subject to the Court’s historical-tradition framework.
That ruling does not mean every gun violence prevention measure discussed in 2013 is unconstitutional. It does mean the modern analysis of some State carry restrictions differs from the policy environment in which the ABA made its early-2013 proposals.
The bottom line on this archive topic
The most accurate reading of this archived subject is straightforward. In early 2013, the ABA publicly supported stronger gun violence prevention measures, including stronger background checks, anti-trafficking and anti-straw-purchase laws, and limits on certain weapons and magazines. That was an advocacy position.
Current law must be described separately. Federal law now rests on sources such as the Brady Law framework, 18 U.S.C. § 922, later legislation including the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, and Supreme Court decisions such as Bruen. State law continues to vary.
For that reason, the archive topic is most useful as historical and legal context showing how a major legal organization framed gun policy in 2013, while current rights and restrictions depend on current official Sources.
