Table S3.

States that implemented background checks and waiting periods during the Brady Act’s interim period from February 1994 through November 1998, according to Ludwig and Cook (8) and this study

Ludwig and Cook (8)New coding (this study)
StateBackground checkWaiting periodBackground checkWaiting period
Alabama*
Alaska
ArizonaFeb–Oct 1994
ArkansasFeb 1994–June 1997Feb 1994–June 1997
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
GeorgiaFeb 1994–Dec 1995
Hawaii
Idaho§Feb–May 1994
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska#
Nevada||
New Hampshire**Feb–Dec 1994
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina††
North Dakota
Ohio‡‡Feb 1994–June 1997
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania§§
Rhode Island¶¶
South Carolina##
South Dakota||||
Tennessee***
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington†††
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
  • The coding of states in boldface differs; an explanation of differences is provided in table footnotes. Dates are noted for cases in which policies changed during the interim period. ■, state got policy for full interim period; □, state got policy for part of interim period.

  • * Alabama had a 2-d waiting period on handgun purchases before implementation of the Brady Act (Code of Ala. § 13A-11-77).

  • Arizona created an instant check background system in October 1994, and therefore had effectively no waiting period for most of the Brady Act’s interim period (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13–3114).

  • Georgia implemented an instant check system in January 1996 (Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-170).

  • § Idaho implemented an instant check system in June 1994 (Ida. Code § 19-5403).

  • Minnesota created a permit system in 1977 that required background checks and a 7-d waiting period for handgun purchases (Minn. Stat. § 624.7131 et seq.).

  • # Nebraska was exempt from the Brady Act (22, 23). Furthermore, it created a handgun permit system with a background check and 2-d waiting period in 1991 (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 69-2404 et seq.).

  • || Ludwig and Cook (8) say Nevada was classified as a control state because it’s pre-Brady Act laws were strict enough to warrant an exemption even though it was subject to the Brady Act. We cannot find evidence of this; Nevada had neither a background check nor waiting period requirement before implementation of the Brady Act (24) and was subject to the act’s provisions (23). We classify the state as not having a waiting period because the state implemented an instant check system (25).

  • ** New Hampshire implemented an instant check system in January 1995 (N.H. Rev. Stat Ann. § 159-C).

  • †† We classify North Carolina as a control state because it implemented a handgun permit system in 1919 (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-402 et seq.). An explicit background check requirement was not added to the statutes until 1995, but the law previously required superior court clerks to certify that handgun permit applicants were of “good moral character” and included felonies, indictments, fugitive status, and mentally ill persons among those not of such character (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-404).

  • ‡‡ Ohio was subject to the Brady Act’s interim provisions (22, 23) but had instant background checks (25), and is therefore coded as not implementing a waiting period. Like Ludwig and Cook (8), we code Ohio as stopping background checks after the Supreme Court’s decision in Printz v. United States in June of 1997. We cannot find a statute or executive order for Ohio, and therefore rely exclusively on federal government reports (22, 23, 25).

  • §§ Pennsylvania already had a 2-d waiting period before implementation of the Brady Act (24). We therefore code the state as only implementing the Brady Act’s background check provisions. The state abandoned its waiting period in 1998 when instant checks became available (text and legislative history of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6111).

  • ¶¶ Rhode Island was subject to the Brady Act despite requiring both a background check and waiting period as part of its handgun permit process before 1994 (24). It therefore did not newly implement background checks or waiting periods as a result of the Brady Act (R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-47-35 et seq.).

  • ## South Carolina’s Law Enforcement Division ran an instant check system at the time the Brady Act was implemented (22, 25, 26), and is therefore coded as not implementing a waiting period. South Carolina’s governor created the instant check system by executive order (26).

  • |||| South Dakota had a 2-d waiting period before implementation of the Brady Act (since at least 1935) that was not repealed until 2009 (S.D. Codified Laws § 23-7-9).

  • *** Tennessee was subject to the Brady Act even though it already required a background check and 15-d waiting period (24) (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1316). It is therefore coded as not newly implementing these laws due to the Brady Act’s interim provisions.

  • ††† Washington had background checks before the Brady Act but was not Brady-exempt because it did not require the chief law enforcement officer in the area where the purchaser lived to conduct the check (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9.41.090).