Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for conside…
The bill prohibits States and local governments from requiring liability insurance, taxes, user fees, or similar charges as conditions for manufacturing, importing, acquiring, transferring, or owning firearms or ammunition. It amends 18 U.S.C. §927 and adds a new Internal Revenue Code section to codify the ban.
Progressives stress loss of local safety tools and accountability.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive statutory preemption that clearly states its purpose and inserts prohibitory language into specific code sections.
The bill prohibits States and local governments from requiring liability insurance, taxes, user fees, or similar charges as conditions for manufacturing, importing, acquiring, transferring, or owning firearms or ammunition.
It amends 18 U.S.C. §927 and adds a new Internal Revenue Code section to codify the ban.
A generally applicable sales tax may still apply to firearms and ammunition in the same proportion as other goods.
Narrow but highly partisan federal preemption: plausible in a friendly House, difficult in the Senate; legal challenges and state opposition increase risk.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive statutory preemption that clearly states its purpose and inserts prohibitory language into specific code sections. It integrates with existing law by amending named provisions and referencing statutory definitions. However, it provides limited implementation detail beyond the prohibition itself and omits explicit enforcement mechanisms, fiscal acknowledgment, precise definitions for some terms, and transitional or oversight provisions.
Progressives stress loss of local safety tools and accountability.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress loss of local safety tools and accountability.
Viewed as a federal preemption that removes policy tools states and cities might use to reduce gun violence.
Sees the ban as blocking liability mechanisms and revenue sources for violence prevention, and as limiting local control.
Would emphasize public safety and accountability concerns from removing insurance or fee requirements.
Balances respect for constitutional rights and commerce predictability with concern about removing local policy tools.
Appreciates preventing arbitrary or discriminatory fees, but worries about losing options to finance public safety.
Would seek empirical study, sunset clauses, or federal alternatives before full endorsement.
Sees the bill as a protective measure for Second Amendment rights and commerce in firearms.
Views federal prohibition on fees and insurance mandates as preventing state and local overreach and punitive taxation.
Prefers national uniformity and fewer barriers to lawful ownership and transfer.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but highly partisan federal preemption: plausible in a friendly House, difficult in the Senate; legal challenges and state opposition increase risk.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress loss of local safety tools and accountability.
Narrow but highly partisan federal preemption: plausible in a friendly House, difficult in the Senate; legal challenges and state oppositio…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive statutory preemption that clearly states its purpose and inserts prohibitory language into specific code sections. It integrates with…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.