Freedom from Improper Regulation and Enforcement Act; FIRE Act
Summary
The Freedom from Improper Regulation and Enforcement Act (FIRE Act) aims to amend Title 18 of the United States Code to prohibit capacity-based restrictions on firearm magazines. This bill prevents federal officers and employees from enforcing regulations that limit or prohibit firearm magazines based on their capacity. It also invalidates state and local laws that impose such restrictions or penalties.
The bill defines 'firearm magazine' as any fixed or detachable device used to store and feed ammunition into a firearm, clarifying that 'capacity' refers to the number of rounds the magazine can hold. The amendments would take effect 30 days after the Act's enactment.
Sponsored by Mr. Wied and several co-sponsors, the bill has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary for consideration.
Expected Effects
If enacted, the FIRE Act would eliminate restrictions on the capacity of firearm magazines at both the federal, state, and local levels. This would allow individuals to possess magazines of any capacity, regardless of state or local laws to the contrary.
This could lead to legal challenges in states with existing magazine capacity restrictions. It may also alter law enforcement strategies and potentially impact public safety debates.
Potential Benefits
- Increased self-defense options: Citizens could possess higher-capacity magazines for self-defense purposes.
- Reduced regulatory burden: Firearm owners would face fewer restrictions on magazine capacity.
- Standardization of laws: The bill would create a uniform federal standard, overriding varying state and local laws.
- Protection of Second Amendment rights: Supporters may argue this strengthens the right to bear arms.
- Potential for increased recreational shooting activities: Higher capacity magazines may enhance the experience for sport shooting.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential increase in gun violence: Critics argue that higher-capacity magazines could lead to more casualties in mass shootings.
- Undermining state and local control: The bill preempts state and local laws, limiting their ability to address local safety concerns.
- Increased risk to law enforcement: Higher-capacity magazines could pose a greater threat to law enforcement during confrontations.
- Public safety concerns: Some argue that unrestricted magazine capacity could increase the risk of accidental shootings or misuse.
- Legal challenges: The bill could face legal challenges based on states' rights and public safety concerns.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is primarily debated in the context of the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. Proponents argue that restricting magazine capacity infringes upon this right, while opponents contend that reasonable regulations are permissible to ensure public safety.
The Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, is also relevant. The FIRE Act's preemption of state and local laws raises questions about the balance of power between the federal government and the states.
Article I, Section 8, which enumerates the powers of Congress, may also be invoked to determine whether Congress has the authority to regulate firearm magazines in this manner.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).