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 would prevent federal, state, and local governments from imposing limitations or prohibitions on firearm magazines based on their capacity. The bill defines 'firearm magazine' and 'capacity' for clarity.
The Act specifies that the amendments will take effect 30 days after enactment. Introduced in the Senate, the bill has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary for consideration.
In essence, the FIRE Act seeks to standardize regulations regarding firearm magazines by removing capacity restrictions, potentially affecting gun control measures at various levels of government.
Expected Effects
If enacted, the FIRE Act would invalidate existing state and local laws that limit the capacity of firearm magazines. Federal agencies would also be prohibited from creating or enforcing regulations that restrict magazine capacity. This could lead to increased availability of high-capacity magazines in states that currently restrict them.
The change could also prompt legal challenges regarding the balance between Second Amendment rights and public safety concerns. The practical effect would be a shift in the regulatory landscape concerning firearms and ammunition.
Potential Benefits
- Protects Second Amendment rights by preventing restrictions on magazine capacity.
- Standardizes firearm magazine regulations across federal, state, and local levels.
- Reduces potential legal ambiguity and compliance burdens for gun owners.
- May increase self-defense options for individuals by allowing access to larger capacity magazines.
- Could stimulate the firearms industry by removing restrictions on magazine production and sales.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- May increase the potential for mass shootings due to easier access to high-capacity magazines.
- Could undermine state and local efforts to reduce gun violence.
- May lead to increased crime rates involving firearms.
- Could face legal challenges based on public safety concerns and the balance between Second Amendment rights and the government's power to regulate firearms.
- May increase the risk to law enforcement during encounters with armed individuals.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's alignment with the U.S. Constitution centers on the Second Amendment, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. Proponents argue that restricting magazine capacity infringes upon this right. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment, particularly in cases like District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, acknowledges the right to bear arms for self-defense but also recognizes the government's power to regulate firearms.
Opponents may argue that the bill infringes upon the government's ability to ensure public safety, potentially conflicting with the Constitution's charge to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence." The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, which could be invoked to challenge the federal preemption of state laws regarding magazine capacity.
Ultimately, the constitutional alignment depends on how the courts balance Second Amendment rights with the government's interest in preventing gun violence.
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).