Keep Americans Safe Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. DeGette, Diana [D-CO-1]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 27, 2025
Bottom line
The Keep Americans Safe Act aims to reduce gun violence by restricting access to high-capacity ammunition feeding devices, while exempting law enforcement and allowing current owners to retain their existing devices.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices (LCAFDs) that can hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition. It includes a grandfather clause for devices lawfully possessed before the bill's enactment and provides specific exemptions for law enforcement and nuclear security personnel. Additionally, it mandates serial numbers for newly manufactured LCAFDs and allows federal Byrne grants to be used for voluntary buy-back programs for these devices.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that restricting large capacity ammunition feeding devices is a critical step to mitigate the lethality of mass shootings, as these devices enable shooters to fire a high volume of rounds rapidly without reloading, thereby increasing casualties. They contend that this measure will save lives by reducing the capacity for widespread harm in gun violence incidents.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to self-defense, arguing that such restrictions are ineffective at deterring criminals who will obtain these devices illegally. They believe that the focus should instead be on enforcing existing laws and addressing the root causes of violence, rather than restricting common firearm accessories.
The bill is concise and its core provisions are clearly articulated, making it accessible for a quick and informed review by interested readers.
Section 2, amending 18 U.S.C. 921(a)
Definition of 'Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device'
This section defines a 'large capacity ammunition feeding device' as any magazine, belt, drum, or similar device that has an overall capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 15 rounds of ammunition. It explicitly excludes tubular devices designed for and operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that a clear and precise definition is essential for effective enforcement of the ban, ensuring that the law targets the specific devices intended to be regulated while avoiding ambiguity.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that the 15-round limit is arbitrary and that defining commonly used accessories as 'large capacity' is an overreach that infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
Tradeoffs
The definition seeks to balance the desire for a broad restriction on high-capacity devices with the need for legal clarity and specific exemptions, such as for certain rimfire ammunition devices.
Section 3(a), amending 18 U.S.C. 922
Prohibition on Import, Sale, Manufacture, Transfer, or Possession of LCAFDs
This provision makes it unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. It includes a 'grandfather clause' allowing individuals to keep devices lawfully possessed before the bill's enactment. Exemptions are also provided for qualified law enforcement officers (including campus law enforcement), nuclear security personnel, retired law enforcement, and licensed manufacturers/importers for testing purposes.
Section 3(b), amending 18 U.S.C. 923(i)
Identification Markings for New LCAFDs
This section requires that any large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the bill's enactment must be marked with a serial number and the date of manufacture. These markings must be legibly and conspicuously engraved or cast on the device, with additional identification as the Attorney General may prescribe.
Section 3(c), amending 18 U.S.C. 924(d)
Seizure and Forfeiture of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices
This section amends existing federal law to include large capacity ammunition feeding devices in the list of items subject to seizure and forfeiture. This means that if an LCAFD is involved in or intended for use in a violation of the new prohibition (subsection (v)), it can be legally seized by authorities.
Section 4, amending 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(B)
Penalties for Violations of LCAFD Restrictions
This section amends federal law to ensure that violations of the new prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices (specifically subsection (v) of 18 U.S.C. 922) are subject to the same criminal penalties as other specified firearms offenses. This typically includes imprisonment for up to 10 years and/or fines.
Section 5, amending 34 U.S.C. 10152(a)(1)
Use of Byrne Grants for LCAFD Buy-Back Programs
This section amends the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program to explicitly allow federal funds from these grants to be used by state and local governments for compensating individuals who voluntarily surrender large capacity ammunition feeding devices through buy-back programs.
Defines 'campus law enforcement officer' for the purpose of exemption from the LCAFD ban. This definition requires the individual to be employed by a private institution of higher education eligible for Title IV funding, responsible for crime prevention/investigation, authorized by law to carry a firearm/execute warrants/make arrests, and recognized/commissioned/certified as a law enforcement officer by a government entity.
Section 3(4)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to precisely define terms that grant exemptions, ensuring that the exemption is applied only to legitimate and qualified personnel, rather than being broadly interpreted.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this precise definition ensures that the exemption for campus law enforcement is granted only to individuals who meet rigorous professional standards and legal authorizations, preventing potential misuse or unqualified personnel from carrying prohibited devices.
Case against: Some critics might argue that the definition is overly prescriptive or restrictive, potentially excluding campus security personnel who perform similar functions at private institutions but do not meet every specific criterion, or creating an uneven application of the law across different types of educational institutions.
Estimated impact: This provision narrows the scope of the law enforcement exemption, specifically affecting a subset of security personnel at private institutions of higher education by setting high bars for their eligibility to possess LCAFDs.