At a time when political agendas often overshadow public safety and individual rights, Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., has introduced the Law Enforcement Protection and Privacy Act, a bold and necessary defense of both. 

This legislation, which strengthens the Tiahrt Trace Data Amendment, is not a technical adjustment to an obscure law — it serves as a crucial barrier against the misuse of sensitive firearm trace data that endangers law enforcement, undermines criminal investigations, and threatens the Second Amendment rights of Americans. As we approach a pivotal moment in the debate over privacy, security and gun rights, the act deserves prompt passage and broad support.

The Tiahrt Amendment was enacted as an appropriations amendment in 2003 and, after minimal adjustments, was signed into law in 2009 by President Barack Obama. It was a practical response to a fundamental issue: the public disclosure of firearm trace data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ National Tracing Center, aimed at protecting the privacy of every firearm owner.

This trace data, compiled from manufacturer to final sale, is inherently sensitive. When a crime is committed with a firearm, the trace data can form part of the details concerning cases, undercover operations, and the identities of witnesses or federal firearms licensees — lawful gun dealers. The Tiahrt Trace Data Amendment ensured this information remained accessible only to law enforcement officials and prosecutors, safeguarding investigations and the individuals involved.

Despite its clear intent, the Tiahrt Amendment has been frequently violated. Politically motivated leaks have led to trace data being released to anti-gun advocacy groups, which subsequently exploit it to “name and shame” lawful sellers. 

These smear campaigns not only harm reputations but also expose dealers to harassment, financial ruin and physical danger. Such disclosures jeopardize investigations, putting law enforcement officers, informants and communities at risk. Higgins is right to describe this for what it is: a reckless betrayal of public safety and constitutional rights.

The Law Enforcement Act directly addresses these failures. It clarifies that National Tracing Center data are exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests, effectively closing a loophole. It imposes significant penalties — $10,000 for a first violation per record and $25,000 for subsequent violations — along with a one-year suspension of National Tracing Center access for offenders, as outlined in the bill. 

For federal firearms licensees harmed by illegal disclosures, it provides a private right of action, offering remedies such as triple damages or $25,000 per violation, plus punitive damages and legal fees while eliminating sovereign immunity as a defense. These measures, far from excessive, represent a balanced response to a persistent pattern of abuse.

Critics, including some who urged President Obama to repeal the Tiahrt Trace Data Amendment, argue that limiting trace data impedes transparency and enables bad actors in the gun industry. They opposed Obama’s modest proposal to allow the ATF to share data with local and state agencies and foreign governments — a step he framed as a compromise between transparency and security. 

However, this criticism overlooks the main issue. Transparency is essential, but not when it endangers active investigations or punishes the innocent. The Tiahrt Amendment permits law enforcement to share data as needed, preventing handing it over to operatives disguising themselves as reformers. The act doesn’t stifle accountability — it redirects it toward those who break the law, not those who follow it.

Support for Higgins’ bill from Second Amendment advocates is significant. These groups understand that protecting trace data isn’t about hiding wrongdoing; it’s about preserving the integrity of a system that balances public safety with individual liberty.

As Lawrence Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation said, unauthorized leaks have been used to “smear the reputation of law-abiding members of the firearm industry.” Aidan Johnston from Gun Owners of America highlights the importance of “creating a private right of action as a remedy for anyone wronged by this gross abuse of power.” John Commerford of the National Rifle Association stressed the improper collaboration with anti-gun allies to target lawful dealers.

This is not speculation but a documented abuse of power that the act aims to end.

Skeptics may ask: Why now? The answer lies in the increasing politicization of gun policy. The ATF, under pressure from gun-control advocates, has failed to enforce existing safeguards, such as revoking access to data for violators. Meanwhile, the cultural war over firearms has intensified, with law-abiding citizens and businesses caught in the crossfire. The act is not just a legislative fix — it’s a declaration that the rule of law must triumph over ideological crusades.

Today, as we reflect on our rights and security, the Law Enforcement Protection and Privacy Act offers a promising path forward. It safeguards law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line, protects dealers from baseless attacks, and upholds the Second Amendment. Congress should pass this bill not as a favor to any single group but as a commitment to justice and common sense. The alternative — continuing leaks, compromised investigations and reduced trust — comes at too high a cost to accept.