HR-2790-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Lucy McBath (D-GA)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, and possession of gas-operated semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines). Existing large-capacity magazines manufactured before the bill's enactment could be kept but not transferred. Violations would carry criminal penalties of a fine, up to 12 months in prison, or both per violation, with an additional mandatory minimum of two years in prison for possessing a prohibited firearm during a federal felony. The bill would also allow states and localities to use existing Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant funds to pay individuals who voluntarily surrender prohibited firearms and magazines through buy-back programs.
Who benefits
Communities and individuals who argue they would be safer with fewer high-capacity semi-automatic firearms in circulation. Law enforcement agencies that may face reduced risk from high-volume fire in confrontations. Survivors and families affected by mass shootings involving gas-operated semi-automatic firearms. Bolt-action, lever-action, and pump-action firearm owners and manufacturers, who face no new restrictions and may see a competitive shift in the market. State and local governments that would gain access to federal grant funds for voluntary buy-back programs.
Who is hurt
Current owners of gas-operated semi-automatic firearms, who would be prohibited from possessing them. Firearms manufacturers and retailers whose product lines include gas-operated semi-automatic firearms, which represent a large share of the modern civilian market. Hunters and sport shooters who use semi-automatic rifles or shotguns for lawful purposes. Rural residents who rely on semi-automatic firearms for property protection or pest control. Low-income gun owners who may not be compensated through voluntary buy-back programs. Firearms dealers and distributors whose inventories would be affected. Workers employed in the manufacture of affected firearms and magazines.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that gas-operated semi-automatic firearms — including AR-style rifles — have been the weapon of choice in many of the deadliest U.S. mass shootings, including those in Las Vegas, Parkland, and Uvalde, and that their ability to fire rapidly with large-capacity magazines dramatically increases casualties. They contend that the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which covered similar firearms, was associated with a decline in mass shooting fatalities during its 10-year lifespan, and that its expiration in 2004 coincided with a rise in such incidents. They further argue that the bill targets a specific operating mechanism — gas-operated cycling — rather than all semi-automatic firearms, making it a narrowly tailored approach to the most dangerous configurations.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that gas-operated semi-automatic firearms are among the most commonly owned firearms in the United States — with an estimated 20+ million AR-style rifles alone — making a possession ban an extraordinarily broad restriction on a constitutionally protected right. They contend that under New York State Rifle v. Bruen (2022), any firearms regulation must be grounded in the historical tradition of firearms regulation at the founding, and that no such tradition of banning entire categories of commonly owned firearms exists, a point reinforced by the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Rahimi, which upheld only narrow, individualized restrictions. They further argue that research on the 1994 ban's effectiveness is mixed, with some studies finding minimal impact on overall gun violence rates.
Constitutional context
The Second Amendment and the Supreme Court's Bruen (2022) framework are directly relevant: regulations on firearms must now be justified by a historical tradition of analogous regulation at the founding era. Banning an entire category of commonly owned firearms raises significant questions under District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which suggested that weapons "in common use" enjoy constitutional protection — a standard that gas-operated semi-automatic rifles likely meet given their prevalence. The Rahimi (2024) decision refined but did not abandon the Bruen framework, leaving the constitutionality of categorical bans on widely owned firearms actively unresolved across multiple federal circuits.
Checks and balances
Congress would establish the prohibition and criminal penalties; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Department of Justice would enforce the law; federal courts would review constitutional challenges under the Bruen text-history-tradition framework, with no deference owed to agency interpretations post-Loper Bright (2024).
Historical precedent
The federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004) prohibited the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic firearms with certain features and large-capacity magazines for civilians, and was allowed to expire by Congress in 2004; several states have enacted similar bans that are currently being litigated under the Bruen framework.