Firearm Freedom Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Patronis, Jimmy [R-FL-1]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 22, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to eliminate the federal prohibition on civilian ownership and transfer of newly manufactured machineguns, representing a significant deregulation of firearm control.
What it actually does
This bill proposes to repeal subsection (o) of Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, which currently prohibits the possession or transfer of machineguns manufactured after May 19, 1986. The repeal would effectively lift the federal ban on the manufacture, transfer, and civilian possession of new machineguns.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the current ban on machineguns infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, asserting that the right to keep and bear arms should not be restricted based on the type of firearm. They contend that the Hughes Amendment was an unconstitutional overreach and its repeal would restore fundamental liberties, noting that legally owned automatic weapons have historically been rarely used in crimes.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that repealing the ban on machineguns would pose an unacceptable risk to public safety, dramatically increasing the potential for mass casualties and making communities and law enforcement less safe. They argue that machineguns are weapons of war designed for rapid, indiscriminate killing and have no legitimate civilian purpose, and their widespread availability would exacerbate gun violence.
The bill text is exceptionally brief and can be read in under a minute, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its direct legislative intent.
Section 2
Repeal of Ban on Possession or Transfer of Machineguns
This section directly amends Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, by striking subsection (o). This subsection currently prohibits the possession or transfer of machineguns manufactured after May 19, 1986, for civilian use. Its removal would eliminate this federal prohibition, thereby allowing for the legal manufacture, transfer, and private ownership of new machineguns, subject to other existing federal firearm regulations like the National Firearms Act.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Hughes Amendment was an unconstitutional infringement on Second Amendment rights, and its repeal restores the ability of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for self-defense, including those capable of rapid firing. They may also point to the rarity of crimes committed with legally owned machineguns under previous regulatory schemes, suggesting that responsible ownership is possible.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that machineguns are weapons of war designed for mass casualties and have no place in civilian hands. They argue that repealing this ban would lead to a significant increase in gun violence, make mass shootings more deadly, and endanger law enforcement officers, citing the inherent danger and destructive capacity of such weapons.
Tradeoffs
The provision highlights the fundamental tension between individual Second Amendment rights as interpreted by some and the government's interest in public safety and regulating dangerous weapons. It trades potential expansion of firearm ownership rights for potential increased risks of gun violence and lethality in criminal acts.