Protecting Our Second Amendment Data Act
Introduced May 12, 2026 · Last action May 12, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill requires law enforcement agencies and organizations applying for federal law enforcement grants to certify that they have not disclosed the personal information of people involved in firearm purchases, concealed carry permits, open carry permits, or background checks during the previous fiscal year. Agencies that fail to make this certification or have disclosed such information would become ineligible for these federal grants.
Who benefits
Gun rights advocacy organizations (such as the National Rifle Association and state firearms groups), individuals who purchase firearms or apply for concealed/open carry permits, and those opposed to data sharing on firearm transactions.
Who pays / loses
State and local law enforcement agencies, Indian tribes, and private organizations that currently receive Edward Byrne grants, COPS grants, and other discretionary law enforcement grants—who would lose federal funding if they cannot certify non-disclosure of firearm-transaction personal information. Public health researchers and law enforcement agencies that use aggregate firearm data for research or crime prevention would face greater restrictions on access to such information.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA-10), received $1,452,848.93 in 'Other' category contributions in the 2024 cycle but $0 in PAC contributions. The 'Other' category typically includes individual contributions and non-connected organizations. The bill aligns with the priorities of gun rights organizations that oppose disclosure of firearm transaction data and that typically lobby for Second Amendment protections, though no specific gun lobby contributions appear in the disclosed 2024 cycle data for Perry.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Law enforcement agencies at state and local levels (approximately 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies in the U.S.) that receive federal grants under the named programs; concealed carry permit applicants and firearm purchasers; public health researchers studying firearm-related injuries and deaths; and communities where law enforcement relies on grant funding for equipment, training, and operations.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue this bill protects Second Amendment rights by preventing what they characterize as surveillance or misuse of firearm transaction data by law enforcement and preventing disclosure to anti-gun organizations or the public. Critics argue the bill could impede legitimate law enforcement uses of firearm transaction data for crime analysis, homicide investigation, and public health research on firearm violence. The bill does not distinguish between disclosure to the public versus internal law enforcement use, which may limit data sharing for investigative purposes. Non-partisan evidence from the Centers for Disease Control, academic public health researchers, and law enforcement agencies shows that access to firearm transaction data supports analysis of trafficking patterns and injury prevention—but the bill's broad language on 'personally identifiable information' could restrict such uses.
Real-World Stakes
If this passes, law enforcement agencies and tribal governments would face a federal grant eligibility condition that requires certifying non-disclosure of any personal information on firearm transactions. Agencies that have disclosed such data—including to other law enforcement agencies, public health researchers, or in response to public records requests—would lose eligibility for Edward Byrne grants, COPS grants, and other named discretionary grants. This could reduce funding for 911 systems, community policing programs, crime analysis, and officer training in jurisdictions that have shared firearm data. Analogous state-level restrictions on firearm data sharing have been enacted in Pennsylvania (where the sponsor is based) and other Republican-led states, though no comprehensive outcome studies document the law enforcement or public health impact at scale. The bill's ban on 'knowing' disclosure may create legal ambiguity for agencies responding to public records requests or court orders, as courts could challenge whether compliance constitutes 'knowing' disclosure subject to grant loss.
Sponsor
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
Top contributing industries
Other$1,452,848.93
Finance$28,027.37
Construction$6,600
Transportation$4,175
Agriculture$2,200
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.