GOSAFE Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. McBath, Lucy [D-GA-6]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 9, 2025
Bottom line
The GOSAFE Act seeks to significantly restrict the availability and transfer of specific semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines through new prohibitions, a voluntary buy-back program, and a federal firearm design approval process.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the GOSAFE Act, amends federal law to restrict the possession, sale, manufacture, and transfer of certain gas-operated semi-automatic firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. It establishes a process for the Attorney General to determine and list prohibited firearms and creates a new application and approval system for firearm manufacturers for new designs. The bill also authorizes federal grants for voluntary buy-back programs for these prohibited items and sets penalties for violations.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this legislation is a critical step to enhance public safety and reduce gun violence, particularly mass shootings, by limiting civilian access to firearms and accessories designed for rapid, widespread harm. They contend that restricting these specific types of weapons and high-capacity magazines will save lives and make communities safer.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens by banning common firearms and accessories. They argue that such bans are ineffective at deterring criminals, who will obtain prohibited items illegally, and instead criminalize responsible gun owners while failing to address the root causes of violence.
The bill contains detailed definitions and exceptions that require careful reading to fully understand its scope and implications, making a quick review challenging for an informed reader.
Section 2(a), amending 18 U.S.C. 921(a)
Definitions of Prohibited Firearms and Devices
This provision adds new definitions to federal law, including 'semi-automatic firearm,' 'cycle the action,' 'gas-operated,' and 'large capacity ammunition feeding device.' The term 'gas-operated' is broadly defined to include various mechanisms like piston, direct impingement, blowback, and recoil-operated systems. A 'large capacity ammunition feeding device' is defined as one capable of holding more than 10 rounds, excluding .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that precise and comprehensive definitions are essential for effective firearm regulation, ensuring that the law clearly targets specific types of firearms and accessories identified as posing higher risks to public safety.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that these definitions are overly broad and encompass many common firearms and magazines, effectively banning them under the guise of specific targeting, thereby infringing on Second Amendment rights.
Tradeoffs
The bill navigates the tension between the need for clear, enforceable definitions to achieve public safety goals and concerns about overreach that could impact a wide range of commonly owned firearms and accessories.
Section 2(b), amending 18 U.S.C. 922(v)
Prohibition on Gas-Operated Semi-Automatic Firearms and Rate-of-Fire Devices
This section makes it unlawful to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, receive, or possess (with specific exceptions) any firearm included on a list of prohibited gas-operated semi-automatic firearms to be published by the Attorney General. It also prohibits parts designed to modify non-prohibited firearms into prohibited ones, combinations of parts to assemble prohibited firearms, and devices that materially increase a semi-automatic firearm's rate of fire or approximate a machinegun's action.
Section 2(b), amending 18 U.S.C. 922(v)(2) and (4)
Exceptions and Grandfathering for Prohibited Firearms
The prohibition on gas-operated semi-automatic firearms does not apply to government entities (federal, state, tribal) or nuclear facility security personnel. Firearms lawfully manufactured and transferred before the bill's enactment are grandfathered, allowing continued possession. However, transfers of these grandfathered firearms are restricted to immediate family members only, and must occur through a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer (FFL) to comply with background check requirements. The bill also explicitly excludes certain types of firearms (e.g., .22 caliber rimfire without separate receivers, single-shot, bolt/lever/pump action, fixed-magazine rifles/shotguns, revolvers, and certain recoil-operated semi-automatic handguns with fixed magazines) from the definition of 'gas-operated semi-automatic firearm' for the purpose of the ban.
Section 2(b), amending 18 U.S.C. 922(w)
Prohibition on Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices
This section makes it unlawful to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or receive a large capacity ammunition feeding device (defined as holding more than 10 rounds, excluding .22 rimfire). It also prohibits the possession of any such device manufactured after the date of enactment. Devices lawfully owned before enactment cannot be transferred after the enactment date, with exceptions for government entities and nuclear facility security.
Section 3, amending 34 U.S.C. 10152(a)(1)
Use of Byrne Grants for Firearm Buy-Back Programs
This provision amends the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program to specifically include 'Compensation for surrendered gas-operated semi-automatic firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices' as an allowable use of funds. This means states and tribes can use federal Byrne grant money to establish or support voluntary buy-back programs for the firearms and magazines prohibited under this Act.
Section 4, amending 18 U.S.C. 924(a)
Penalties for Violations
This provision establishes criminal penalties for violating the new prohibitions. Violations related to gas-operated semi-automatic firearms or large capacity ammunition feeding devices are punishable by a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment for up to 12 months, or both, for each offense. Additionally, committing or attempting to commit any other federal offense punishable by more than one year imprisonment while in possession of a prohibited gas-operated semi-automatic firearm incurs a separate, additional penalty of 2 to 10 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $250,000.
Section 5, adding 18 U.S.C. 935
Prohibited Firearm Determinations and Design Approval Process
This section mandates the Attorney General, through the ATF Director, to publish and regularly update a list of prohibited gas-operated semi-automatic firearms within 180 days of enactment. It also creates a formal application process for licensed manufacturers to seek approval for new semi-automatic firearm designs, ensuring they are not subject to the prohibition, with a 240-day review period. Application fees will fund a new 'Firearm Safety Trust Fund,' which will also receive existing National Firearms Act (NFA) taxes. The section includes provisions for appeals of denials and a private right of action for judicial review if a firearm is removed from the prohibited list.
The definition of 'gas-operated' semi-automatic firearm includes a wide range of mechanisms, such as blowback-operated systems and recoil-operated systems, which are common in many handguns and some shotguns, not just rifles typically associated with 'assault weapons'.
Section 2(a)(41)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for comprehensive definitions, but its breadth could be overlooked by those not familiar with firearm mechanics, potentially leading to a wider ban than anticipated by a general audience.
Case for: Proponents argue that a comprehensive definition is necessary to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the intent of the law by making minor design changes that achieve the same rate of fire or lethality without being explicitly covered.
Case against: Opponents argue that this broad definition is intentionally vague to encompass a vast array of common firearms, including many handguns, thereby expanding the scope of the ban beyond what is publicly discussed or understood.
Estimated impact: Potentially impacts millions of existing semi-automatic handguns and shotguns, depending on the ATF's interpretation and listing process.
The exception for transferring grandfathered gas-operated semi-automatic firearms to immediate family members explicitly requires that a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer (FFL) first take possession of the firearm and comply with all background check requirements as if transferring from their business inventory to the unlicensed transferee.
Section 2(b)(2)(D)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to ensure background checks are conducted for transfers, even within families, but it adds a significant logistical and financial burden that might not be immediately apparent.
Case for: Proponents argue that requiring FFL involvement ensures that all transfers, even within families, are subject to background checks, closing a potential loophole that could allow prohibited individuals to acquire firearms.
Case against: Opponents argue that this requirement places an unnecessary burden on families, complicates the transfer of inherited property, and adds costs to what should be a simple familial transaction, effectively discouraging legal transfers.
Estimated impact: Adds a mandatory step, cost, and administrative burden to potentially millions of future familial transfers of grandfathered firearms.
Establishes a 'Firearm Safety Trust Fund' in the Treasury, into which all taxes collected under subchapter A of chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (National Firearms Act taxes) and any fees collected under this Act for firearm design applications shall be deposited. These funds are available until expended for carrying out the requirements of the GOSAFE Act and the National Firearms Act.
Section 5(c)(4)(C)
Why it matters:While not necessarily evasive, combining new fees with existing NFA taxes into a dedicated, 'until expended' fund creates a significant, self-sustaining financial mechanism for ATF enforcement that might not be highlighted in general summaries.
Case for: Proponents argue that a dedicated, self-sustaining fund is crucial to ensure the ATF has the necessary resources to effectively implement and enforce the complex provisions of the GOSAFE Act and the NFA, without relying solely on annual appropriations.
Case against: Opponents argue that consolidating these funds creates a powerful, insulated funding stream for ATF's regulatory and enforcement activities, potentially leading to an overzealous bureaucracy with less direct congressional oversight over its budget.
Estimated impact: Creates a permanent, dedicated funding source for ATF's firearm regulation and enforcement activities, potentially increasing its operational capacity significantly.